Entangled links, transactions and trees for distributed computing systems

ABSTRACT

An entangled links mechanism to establish and maintain bipartite temporal intimacy between pairs of computers, using an idempotent, reversible token method which presents no observable external “change” until a communication of information needs to occur between the computers, and which maintains the potential for “bounded (or unbounded) reversibility” in case the intended information dispatched by a source computational entity is not captured or properly accepted by a destination computational entity. The mechanism enables distributed computers in a network to remain continuously aware of each other&#39;s presence; to communicate on a logically nearest neighbor basis in a secure and reliable manner in which packets passed over these links do not conflict with normal traffic or cause the available resources of the link to be exceeded; and that atomicity, consistency, isolation, and “reversible durability” may be maintained for transactions when perturbations occur.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.15/687,529, entitled “ENTANGLED LINKS, TRANSACTIONS AND TREES FORDISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEMS” filed Aug. 27, 2017, which is acontinuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/331,225, entitled“ENTANGLED LINKS, TRANSACTIONS AND TREES FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTINGSYSTEMS” filed Jul. 14, 2014, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/846,602, entitled “EARTHCOMPUTING,” filed on Jul. 15, 2013, the entire contents of which areincorporated herein by reference; of U.S. Provisional Application No.61/893,285, entitled “A FRAMEWORK FOR EARTH COMPUTING” filed on Oct. 21,2013, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference;of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/913,302, entitled “EARTHCOMPUTING, VARIOUS EMBODIMENTS & METHODS,” filed on Dec. 8, 2013, theentire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to systems and methods for the storage,computation, reliable communication and the ordering of events insystems that operate across geographically and/or locally distributedcomputer systems. More particularly, the present invention relates toentangled links to establish and maintain bipartite temporal intimacybetween computers. Still more specifically the present invention relatesto entangled transactions and their composition over entangled trees formanaging exchanged and conserved quantities, awareness of time, andrecovery from failures in a distributed computing systems.

Description of Related Art

Distributed Computing. Conventional transactions use two-phase commit orconsensus protocols to achieve their ACID (Atomic, Consistent,Indivisible, and Durable) properties. Shared objects in applicationmemory are manipulated by algorithms which enforce the linearizabilityabstraction. Unfortunately, as attractive as this abstraction is intheory, there is an enormous amount of mechanism (application code,libraries, operating system, kernel, driver, I/O device) before this‘atomic’ abstraction can be translated into bit and packet activity onthe connection (wires or fiber) between computers.

Conventional transactions based on two-phase commit or Paxos (or similarconsensus algorithms) in the App layer are complex, slow, brittle, anddon't survive disasters. A new mechanism is needed to provide a simplerand more fundamental way to implement transactions that are faster andmore robust.

Thus, there is need for a new way of organizing the design of hardwareand software to address the performance, reliability and complexitychallenges of conventional transactions, and mechanisms to manage theordering of events.

Conventional networks incorporate addressable (port) endpoints. Anexample being nodes in a network with Ethernet or IP addresses. This“endpoint addressing” abstracts away latency, failures and the physicalnetwork topology, and presents only a shared or aggregated bandwidthchannel. This was useful in the past because the original purpose of theinternet protocols was to share resources (such as printers), not data.Current cloud computer architectures are based on the TCP/IP model withthose same endpoint addresses, however, their communication andaddressability needs are greatly expanded beyond the original endpoint(port) addressing model of early computers connected to the internet.

Cluster Computing. Servers in conventional clusters use multicast orunicast to broadcast regular server heartbeat messages to other membersof the cluster. Each heartbeat message uniquely identifies the serverthat sends the message. Servers broadcast their heartbeat messages atregular intervals of (for example) 10 seconds. In turn, each server in acluster monitors the multicast or unicast address to ensure that allpeer servers' heartbeat messages are being sent. If a server monitoringthe multicast or unicast address misses three heartbeats from a peerserver (i.e., if it does not receive a heartbeat from the server for 30seconds or longer), the monitoring server marks the peer server as“failed.” It then updates its local status, if necessary, to retract theservices that were hosted on the failed server.

Several mechanisms have been proposed to manage the heartbeat betweencomputers in a cluster or distributed computing environment. Examplesinclude ORACLE, VERITAS Cluster Server, Hadoop and IBM Scale Out NAS.

Some prior art software uses an internal peer-to-peer global clusterheartbeat mechanism to recover from multiple disk, node, andconnectivity failures. The server software uses a scalable,point-to-point heartbeat architecture to efficiently detect failureswithout flooding the server farm's network with heartbeat packets.Heartbeat failures automatically trigger a multicast discovery protocolto automatically determine the set of surviving servers. This isfollowed by “self-healing” recovery, which restores access to grid dataand dynamically rebalances the storage load across the grid. The priorart uses heartbeat channels to detect server and networking outages.

They define a heartbeat as: a software method used to determine whethera network outage has occurred or a host has failed. Pairs of hostsperiodically exchange small messages, and uninterrupted reception ofthese messages indicates that the hosts are functioning and able tocommunicate. Heartbeat exchanges are used to efficiently monitor thehealth of a server farm, and the default heartbeat interval isfrequently one or more seconds.

Other examples use the cluster interconnect for network communicationsbetween cluster systems. Each system runs as an independent unit andshares information at the cluster level. On each system a HighAvailability Daemon (HAD), which is the decision logic for the cluster,maintains a view of the cluster configuration. This daemon operates as areplicated state machine, which means all systems in the cluster have asynchronized state of the cluster configuration. This is accomplished bythe following: a) All systems run an identical copy of HAD; b) HAD oneach system maintains the state of its own resources, and sends allcluster information about the local system to all other machines in thecluster; c) HAD on each system receives information from the othercluster systems to update its own view of the cluster; and d) Eachsystem follows the same code path for actions on the cluster.

In these classical distributed programming models, a programmerspecifies computational resources, data structures, and theirrelationships a priori or constructs them during the initial phase ofprogram execution. Hence the expression of such resources, datastructures and relationships lies within the program. The challenge suchsystems face is maintaining integrity and structure of theserelationships through failure and reconfiguration of the communicationpaths between the computational resources as the program executes. Ifthis could be done simply and reliably (from the perspective of aprogrammer or system administrator), this would provide a richcharacterization of connectedness, where previously TRUE and FALSE werethe only assignable values for the property “connected” in conventionallink-state management. This would enable more diverse responses by anagent, beyond a simple timeout and a specified number of retries.

Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics (QM) describes the relationshipbetween probabilities, information and observables. Put simply, QM maybe regarded as the generalization of probability theory, which dealsexclusively in positive numbers, to the domain of probability amplitudeswhich may take on positive, negative or complex values.

A classical computer stores bits (two-state symbols) such as 0 or 1. Aquantum system stores qubits, representing, for example, photonpolarization ↑ or ↓, AND any superposition (linear combination) of thosetwo states (α↑+β↓), where the coefficients α and β represent theprobability (over a series of measurements) of detecting the photon inthat state.

Matrices are the mathematical language of quantum systems. The state |0>is equivalent to a column vector (e.g. 1 at the top, 0 at the bottom)and |1> represents another column vector (this time with 0 at the topand 1 at the bottom). This is the well-known Dirac Bra-ket formalism fora complex vector. In this formalism, <0 represents a row vector, with 1on the left, and 0 on the right. <1| represents another row vector, thistime with 0 on the left and 1 on the right. Since matrix mechanicsinvolves the multiplication of a row vector by a column vector, this maybe represented, for example, by <0|1> for the standard inner product,and |0><1| for the standard outer product. Multiplying out the standardinner product yields a number, 0, in the above example. Multiplying thestandard outer-product yields a 2×2 matrix, (0,1;0,0) in the aboveexample.

There are a number of 2×2 matrix operations with interesting properties,for example:

A Hadamard matrix (1,1;1,−1) is its own Inverse. e.g. H H*=I (theidentity matrix) (1,0;0,1).

The bit flip operation is (0,1;1,0). // The phase flip operation is(1,0,0,−1).

Quantum operations are always unitary: quantum computations do not eraseinformation or dissipate energy.

The publication “An insight into the nature of information. entanglementand time” predicted that: (a) time emerges from entanglement, and (b)that entanglement exists but quantum computing may be an illusion.

Experimental verification that time emerges from quantum entanglementhas since been published and benchmarks of the D-Wave Machine appear toshow no evidence of quantum speedup. While these results may be far fromconclusive from a scientific perspective, if this insight turns out tobe even partly correct, it opens up the potential for a revolution inthe computer industry by transforming the way we incorporate the conceptof time in the design of hardware, software, networks and informationstorage, and the algorithms that govern their reliability, performanceand consistency of distributed data as our systems scale.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for entangledlinks and entangled transactions. According to one innovative aspect ofthe subject matter in this disclosure, a computer-implemented method forcreating an entangled link between a first computing entity and a secondcomputing entity comprising: identifying, using one or more processors,a first computing entity; discovering, using one or more processors, thesecond computing entity by the first computing entity; connecting, usingone or more processors, the first computing entity to the secondcomputing entity; and establishing an entanglement between the firstcomputing entity and the second computing entity to create the entangledlink as a single abstract computational entity.

In general, another innovative aspect of the subject matter described inthis disclosure may be implemented in a method for composing anentangled tree, over a clique of cells, the method comprising:identifying a set of cells from the clique of cells; identifying a rootcell from the set of cells from the clique of cells; creating aplurality of entangled links between cells in the set; and associatingthe plurality of entangled links to create an entangled state in whichentangled transactions can be created between any two or more cells inthe set of cells.

These and other implementations may each optionally include one or moreof the following features. For example, features may include wherein theentangled link is a software synchronization domain, the first computingentity and the second computing entity are each a cell including anencapsulated computer node, a cell agent and a transformation unit, andthe transformation unit of the first computing entity and thetransformation unit second computing entity are coupled by a medium;wherein the entangled link is maintained using a hot-potatopacket-exchange mechanism between the first computing entity and thesecond computing entity. And wherein the first computing entity and thesecond computing entity together maintain the entangled link as thesingle abstract computational entity; wherein the packet-exchangehot-potato mechanism represents a unique, idempotent, and reversibletoken exchange which presents no visible indication of progress until acommunication of information needs to occur between the first computingentity and the second computing entity, and which maintains thepotential for bounded or unbounded reversibility; wherein the tokenexchange uses a token, and the token is uniquely identifiable only toeach of the first computing entity and the second computing entity, andis encrypted; wherein the entangled link is maintained using an atomicinformation transfer between the first computing entity and the secondcomputing entity, the atomic information transfer synchronizing a firstdata structure for the first computing entity, the first data structuredescribing a combined state of the first computing entity and the secondcomputing entity from a perspective of the first computing entity asecond data structure for the second computing entity, the second datastructure describing the combined state of the first computing entityand the second computing entity from a perspective of the secondcomputing entity; wherein a beacon is used to discover and connect thefirst computing entity and the second computing entity; whereincommunication for the entangled transaction uses an entangledtransaction packet that is associated with one or more tokens used tomaintain the entangled links between the first computing entity, thesecond computing entity and the third computing entity; and wherein theentangled link emulates quantum teleportation for atomic informationtransfer that preserves conserved quantities and exchanged quantities.For example, features may include operations including creating a secondentangled link between the second computing entity and a third computingentity; and creating an entangled transaction between the firstcomputing entity and the third computing entity by associating theentangled link and the second entangled link with atomic informationtransfer between the first computing entity and the third computingentity. Still other features may include operations of detectingunentanglement between the second computing entity and the thirdcomputing entity; creating a third entangled link between the thirdcomputing entity and a fourth computing entity; and reassigning theentangled transaction between the first computing entity and the thirdcomputing entity by associating the entangled link and the thirdentangled link for atomic information transfer between the firstcomputing entity and the third computing entity.

Additional features may include wherein the entangled transaction ismaintained using a packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism between the firstcomputing entity and the third computing entity and wherein the firstcomputing entity and the third computing entity together maintain theentangled transaction as the single abstract computational entity;wherein the packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism is a unique, idempotent,and reversible token exchange which presents no visible indication ofprogress until a communication of information needs to occur between thefirst computing entity and the second computing entity, and whichmaintains the potential for bounded or unbounded reversibility; whereinthe entangled tree includes entangled link structures that arelong-lived, easily detectable and repaired failures, and have explicitentangled token management for recovery; wherein the tree is labeled andidentified with an identifier of the root node; wherein the set of cellsfrom the clique of cells are connected by chained entanglements; whereinat least two cells from the set of cells from the clique are connectedby a skip entanglement; wherein at there is a second tree overlaid onthe clique of cells.

Further other features may include operations of detectingunentanglement of a departing cell in the set of cells; and reconnectingthe set of cells without the departing cell by establishing at least oneentangled link between two cells from the set of cells.

Other implementations of one or more of these aspects includecorresponding systems, apparatus, and computer programs, configured toperform the actions of the methods, encoded on computer storage devices.

It should be understood, however, that the above features and advantagesare not all-inclusive and many additional features and advantages arecontemplated and fall within the scope of the present disclosure.Moreover, it should be understood that the language used in the presentdisclosure has been principally selected for readability andinstructional purposes, and not to limit the scope of the subject matterdisclosed herein.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present disclosure is illustrated by way of example, and not by wayof limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which likereference numerals are used to refer to similar elements.

FIG. 1 shows an example of a cell software stack as an embodiment of thepresent invention.

FIG. 2 shows a single Earth Computing (EC) plex.

FIG. 3 shows an Earth Computing (EC) Complex: An example of ageographically distributed complex of EarthCores.

FIG. 4 is a network diagram of an example architecture showing edgecells for an earth core.

FIGS. 5A & 5B are network diagrams of conventional abstraction within anetworked environment where any node may address any other node.

FIG. 5C is a network diagram of a conventional GEV or “cloud” view of anetwork.

FIG. 5D is a network diagram of a 16-node system illustrating evolablenetworks grow as near-neighbors (N2N).

FIG. 5E shows graphs of unitary and non-unitary modes of evolution ofquantum processes.

FIG. 6A shows a network diagram of a conventional architecture withconventional transactions.

FIG. 6B is a network diagram of an entangled transaction using theindependent compute infrastructure of the present invention.

FIG. 6C is a network diagram of a conventional (legacy) computing andnetwork architecture showing its performance and reliability challengesof all the components in the path.

FIGS. 7A and 7B are block diagrams of embodiments of an individual cell.

FIG. 8A is a network diagram of the computational entities of anentangled link.

FIG. 8B is a network diagram of two cooperating cells forming anentangled link: a reversible computing entity.

FIG. 9A is a network diagram showing the entangled model.

FIG. 9B is a network diagram of a valency limited entanglement from theself cell (in center) LOV perspective.

FIG. 9C is a network diagram of a valency limited entanglement from aGEV perspective where all connections are visible.

FIG. 10A is a diagram showing a beacon mechanism used for discovery andentanglement restart.

FIG. 10B is a diagram showing single packet entanglement.

FIG. 10C is a diagram showing pipelined packet entanglement.

FIG. 11A shows a hybrid information & entanglement.

FIG. 11B shows a transaction mechanism, which is where the entanglementmechanism is maintained by the hot potato protocol during entanglestransactions.

FIG. 11C shows burst entanglements (and burst transactions).

FIG. 11D shows a hybrid Data-Entanglement Method.

FIGS. 12A-12C are diagrams of basic entanglement types.

FIGS. 13A and 13B are diagrams of an entanglement link softwareimplementation architecture.

FIG. 14A shows an example set of data structures on each end of a link.

FIG. 14B shows a block diagram of an example of Protocol Phases forAtomic Information Transfer.

FIG. 14C shows a symmetric 2-bit entanglement pattern, illustrating theexpected 4 states, and with the transform being a grey code from onestate to the next (one bit changes at a time per receive and transmitevent).

FIG. 15A is a network diagram of an example of a chained entanglement.

FIG. 15B is a network diagram of an example of cells connecting througha general interconnection network.

FIG. 15C is a network diagram of an example of link entanglement throughan external switching network.

FIG. 16A is a network diagram of an example of individual independententanglement links.

FIG. 16B is a network diagram of an example of a chained entanglementlinks.

FIG. 16C is a network diagram of an example of skip entanglement links.

FIGS. 16D and 16E are network diagrams an example trees of entanglementlinks.

FIG. 16F is a network diagram of an example of a snowflake ofentanglement links.

FIG. 16G is a network diagram of an example of multiple overlaid treesrouted on a center cell.

FIG. 16H is a network diagram of an example of multiple overlaid treesrouted on a right cell.

FIG. 16I is a network diagram of an example of multiple independenttrees of entanglement links.

FIG. 17A is a subtime sequence diagram for an example token transfer forentanglement between of cells.

FIG. 17B is a sequence diagram for an example token transfer forentanglement between of cells including witness cells.

FIG. 18A shows an example token transfer with no order.

FIG. 18B shows an example token transfer with order in the entangledchain.

FIG. 18C shows an example token transfer with a serialization focus.

FIG. 19A shows an example entangled transactions through earth core andconventional routers.

FIG. 19B shows an example atomic information transfer through earth coreand conventional routers.

FIG. 20A shows an example entangled transaction system for stock markettransactions.

FIGS. 20B and 20C show examples of entangled transaction systems for amultiparty financial transaction.

FIGS. 21A-21F are state diagrams for token transfer between cellscoupled by an entangled link.

FIG. 22A is a diagram showing a self organizing data network for a setof computer systems.

FIGS. 22B-22C are heat maps showing example temporal activity followingentangled link trees.

FIG. 23 is a diagram of an example of a priority queue engine andspecial buffers.

FIG. 24 is a diagram showing an example addressing scheme for cells.

FIG. 25 compares the complexity (indirect addressing state space) ofconventional application networks and entangles chains.

FIG. 26A shows a set of closely synchronized cells in a clique depictingStructural Temporal Integrity (STI).

FIG. 26B is a diagram showing how cliques can grow arbitrarily large inany direction, demonstrating their scale-independence.

FIG. 26C is a diagram showing how cells in arbitrary networks willnaturally form (self-organize) into communities with the latency of eachentangled link representing a natural boundary defining thecommunity/clique. Scale independent, but naturally forms into cliques.

FIG. 27 is an example state diagram of a process for discovering a cell.

FIG. 28A is a diagram showing a 3-way relationship using bipartitelinks.

FIG. 28B is a diagram showing an entangled multi-link structureincluding a plurality of pairs (or some higher number) on the same link.

FIG. 29A shows a more detailed structure incorporating multiple separatebuffers and notification channels into the agent.

FIG. 30A shows an example of a multiple entangled link having fourentangled links.

FIG. 30B shows an example of a four lane implementation of an entangledlink.

FIG. 30C shows an example of an entangled link using Network InterfaceControllers (NICs).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention fundamentally advances the ability to make fastand reliable transactions over a network, as well as enable a substrate(graph topology) upon which to dynamically organize the ordering ofevents in distributed computer systems and ensure the consistency ofdata. More specifically, the present invention solves fundamental issuesin datacenter design and internet services and enables the constructionof online services which can: (a) Provide alternative recovery options,leading to infrastructures which are much more robust to perturbations(failures, disasters, attacks) particularly as they grow in scale; (b)Enable self-healing systems which require less administration, and thusless opportunity for human error (the biggest impediment to robust,agile and scalable infrastructures today); (c) Resolve fundamentalissues regarding file (object) synchronization in online (and offline)services; (d) Distribute transactions far faster, more reliably and moresecurely than existing systems; and (e) Enable core mechanisms for asecure systems foundation for robust infrastructures. For example, itleads the way to system defenses, which can be compromised only if theattacker defeats the speed of light.

Entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon between pairs ofparticles which exhibit quantum superposition. Quantum entanglement is areal, measurable phenomenon, which has been proposed to provide uniquecapabilities for applications in, for example, secure communications andquantum computing systems. A new model of time predicts that timeemerges from entanglement, and can be modeled by photons in a hot potatoprotocol bouncing back and forth between atoms.

This invention pertains to a common architecture for use in classicalsystems based on a quantum entanglement/teleportation model, which mayinitially be “emulated” by classical network mechanism (the ENTangled1,ink—ENTL) which is composable into higher level structures (dynamiclattices) which provide a foundation upon which to build highperformance scalable systems which remain stable in the face ofperturbations (failures, disasters, attacks), and assist in the recoverythereof.

The present invention fundamentally advances the ability to make fastand reliable transactions over a network, as well as enable a substrate(graph topology) upon which to dynamically organize the ordering ofevents in distributed computer systems and ensure the consistency ofdata.

These technical issues are important because, for anyone who can solvethem, they address fundamental issues in datacenter design and internetservices and open up new market opportunities by enabling theconstruction of on-line services which can:

-   -   Provide alternative recovery options, leading to Infrastructures        which are much more robust to perturbations (failures,        disasters, attacks) particularly as they grow in scale.    -   Enable self-healing systems which require less administration,        and thus less opportunity for human error (the biggest        impediment to robust, agile and scalable infrastructures today).    -   Resolve fundamental issues regarding file (object)        synchronization in online (and offline) services.    -   Distribute transactions far faster, more reliably and more        securely than existing systems.    -   Enable core mechanisms for a secure systems foundation for        robust infrastructures. For example, it leads the way to system        defenses which can be compromised only if the attacker defeats        the speed of light.

We leverage a quantum “model” for some distributed computing functions(locking, transactions, serialization foci, etc., in addition to QuantumKey Distribution (QKD)). We introduce secure bipartite behavioralgorithmically as long as our cells are directly connected usingstandard classical packets. To provide the full security benefits acrossa Wide Area Network (WAN) we may need a quantum implementation anddirect access to the fiber and the photon generators/detectorsimplemented in the PHY adaptor, with additional control signals into theNIC to manage the fragile entangled state. There are two motivations forthis approach: (1) to maintain common architecture roles, functions andmanipulation mechanisms whether the system is implemented classically orquantum mechanically, and (2) to expose previously unanticipatedadvantages of emulation this ‘quantum entanglement/teleportation’ modelusing classical network packets. As a minimum, we anticipate variousbenefits (including but not limited to performance, recoverability andreliability of this mechanism) which goes above and beyond what waspreviously considered possible using classical approaches.

Below is described how secure bipartite behavior is establishedalgorithmically between cells (autonomous, self-contained computernodes) using non-standard but still classical packet transfers on thenetwork. This direct cell to cell model applies also to cells connectedvia a common network fabric, by enrolling the network fabric to providethese emulated protocols natively, across all the hops (networksegments) required in a set of bipartite links (forming a tree) forcommunication.

The present invention maintains architectural roles and models and acommon API so that “similar or equivalent” functionality, protocols andcapabilities common to the model can be made available no matter whattheir implementation (software, hardware, quantum devices or somecombination thereof).

There are many functions which may use an underlying “entangled link”mechanism as an element upon which to compose additional distributedsystem functions. One previously described extension is to build an“entangled tree” (the ENtangled TRee—ENTR) out of a set of links andcells (computers AND/OR routing nodes) where the entire tree isaddressable as a single entity, self-healing and self-maintaining. Thesemechanisms are established in the network asset layer (NAL) of the EarthComputing Architecture. Fundamentally, as a classical emulation ofquantum entanglement, they represent bidirectional relationships ratherthan pairs of back-to-back source and destination addresses (which canconflict in simultaneous time), and are capable of providing benefits tocomputer infrastructure, even if they are “emulated” with classicalnetwork packets.

This disclosure delineates hardware functions which may assist thosemechanisms in architecture layers above the Network Asset Layer (NAL).For example, the Data Asset Layer (DAL) and Computation Asset Layer(CAL). Several such functions have been described in prior disclosureswith a canonical implementation in software. This disclosure presentsthose and several additional functions which may benefit (inperformance, reliability, maintainability, security or some otherdimension of system value), by hardware support, in either theNIC(Network Interface Controller), switch, or router.

This invention addresses the problem of “Disaster Recoverable AtomicityProtocol” (DRAP). It was noticed during its invention that the atomicityprotocol provided essentially the same physical capability as the lawsof physics, as depicted in quantum entanglement (reversible unitaryevolution), quantum erasure, quantum teleportation and the no-cloningtheorem. This invention provides a classical emulation of (for example)quantum teleportation, using classical packets on a network.

Entangled Links and Entangled Transactions may be implemented insoftware in the device driver of an operating system, or in the MC, orMC Firmware. These functions may also be implemented in hardware orhardware assistance may be provided in the links of any kind, includingthose that go through a conventional network fabric.

This invention includes the design of mechanisms which use a quantumview of information to enable a network segment (an entangled link) toact as a fundamental primitive which can be leveraged by algorithmswhich depend on the ordering of events for their correct or optimalbehavior in a distributed computing environment.

While these designs can leverage the development of real quantum linksand quantum networks, the breakthrough is in recognizing that many ofthe benefits to the performance, reliability and security do not have towait for these quantum technologies to mature and become available. Thecost and complexity required for super cooled quantum devices may alsobe avoided in implementation. These benefits can, at least in part, beachieved by modifying the way conventional digital logic and/or softwareis organized into independent timing domains at the lowest level in acomputer-network interface, and by emulating, in the simplest possibleway, a reversible one (or more) qubit link on a network segment usingpacket exchanges.

From a purely classical computer science perspective, the benefits ofentangled links can be understood as the removal of all unnecessarymechanism (hardware and software) in the path from the application tothe element that provides the atomic transfer of an encapsulatedinformation token. Conventional distributed transactions whose atomicelement is a shared memory object in application space is replaced by afundamentally asynchronous and far simpler mechanism in the link (thenetwork interfaces and cable/fiber between two computers). In this way,all the existing mechanism in the application path is bypassed and nolonger interferes with the speed and reliability of the atomic andreversible ordering within this mechanism (the entangled link). Aspectsof this invention to achieve this result include:

-   -   The temporal isolation of this reversible link mechanism, such        that a conserved quality (CQ) token can be indefinitely        maintained within the link, and replaced by an exchanged        quantity (EQ) when actual information is to be transferred (and        externally observed).    -   A single computational entity, mutually synchronized by the        simplest elements within the network interfaces on both sides of        a link and indivisible packets transmitted from one side to the        other, and back over the media (cable/fiber).    -   A mechanism to transform the received packets into transmitted        packets, modulated by requests from a local agent on each side        to perform higher level operations. An optional mechanism may        also be included to copy the GEV (global) state of the link into        a local register or memory structure which may be queried by the        local agent on each side (the LOV, or Local Observer View). This        optimal mechanism to copy, or transform, the LOV state within        the link, to the GEV register or memory structure may be        detrimental to the ultimate performance and reliability        characteristics of an entangled link. Because it interferes with        (decoheres) the fragile shared state within the link.    -   A mechanism for the ‘link’ to start from a completely        unconnected and un-entangled state and proceed stepwise to        toward a stable ‘entangled’ state. This stepwise process toward        the entangled state may be achieved by any mechanism designed        into the hardware or hardware/software combination. The goal is        to achieve the minimum (or optimal) number of steps to achieve        the entangled state, which may be recognized either by a        symmetric state machine comprised of elements on both sides of        the link, by a series of packet exchanges which move the joint        state on the link toward a common state, or by the exchange of        ‘information matrices’ which emulate the well-known Pauli        matrices (or their descendants/derivatives).    -   A sequence of states, represented by an initial packet and a        transform, which results in a 2 or more state recurrence which        can be used to distinguish an orderly forward progress of the        process of information transfer, and can also distinguish an        orderly reverse progress of the process of information transfer        within the entangled link.    -   A local mechanism to recognize that entanglement has been lost        (perhaps through the loss of a packet, or a failure in the MC at        either end). And a mechanism to return the link back to a stable        entanglement state while verifying that the entanglement was not        lost due to some nefarious activity by a 3rd party.

The fundamental communication primitive within the link is physicallyand logically atomic (cannot be further subdivided). They contain a datastructure, with or without error correction, with our withoutencryption, which includes one or more (chained atomic) data structures,each comprising:

-   -   A matrix with 2×2 (or 3×3 or 4×4) elements, which is Hermitian        (equal to its own conjugate transpose) and unitary        (determinant=1). Each element shall have sufficient bits of        prefix, in order to identify the representation of the alphabet        comprising the following symbols for each element: 0, +1, −1, i,        −i, and * where i is the imaginary unit (√−1), and * is a ‘don't        care’. Note that the 2×2 matrix may also be used as an        alternative representation for complex number vector, i.e. (a+        ib) is equivalent to a 2×2 matrix: {a,−b,b,a} or {a,b,−b,a}        depending on whether the vector is expressed in a matrix column        form, or a row form.    -   A pair of 2×2 (3×3 or 4×4) matrices representing the local        (self) and remote (other member's view of the entangled pair). A        Transform 2×2 (3×3 or 4×4) which is multiplied by the input        packet matrix to create the output packet.

The advantage of this simplicity is that the mechanism (in hardwareand/or software) is: (1) economy of mechanism; less can go wrong duringperturbations (failures, disasters, attacks), and (2) the mechanism oralgorithm is small enough to be formally proven, thereby eliminatinglarge classes of hardware, software or other implementation bugs, andaffords an opportunity for significant improvements in performance.

Information. We represent negative information as the local (symmetric)reversal of time. Both positive and negative entries are representedequally in this invention as the local reversibility of time in areversible computing sense. However, this may be emulated inhardware/software in a classical sense, or it may employ real quantummechanical implementations using, for example, polarized single photonemitters and detectors over a fiber link.

In the matrix mechanics which describes quantum theory:

1-norm is the sum of the absolute values of the entries in a vector (1in a normalized system)

2-norm (Euclidian norm) is the square root of the sum of the squares ofthe entries (the Pythagorean theory).

Trace is the sum of the main diagonal (a+d).

Determinant is the expression ad−cb (where a,b,c,d are elements of a 2×2matrix).

The Pauli matrices, a set of three 2×2 complex matrices which areHermitian and unitary, and the Hadamard matrices (square matrices whoseentries are either +1 or −1 and whose rows are mutually orthogonal) aretwo of several methods that may be used as operators (state transforms)to drive the joint state of computer ‘link’ (cable and NIC's on bothends) into different modes for the emulation of quantum entanglement,atomic information transfer (AIT), and other functions desired by theapplications and operating systems which live above this mechanism. AITrepresents the emulation of the no-cloning theorem, or quantumteleportation.

The entangled link mechanism, by itself, or when composed into higherlevel graph topologies (for example, through the use of self-healingcommunication trees), may be used to supplement or replace existingmechanisms for:

-   -   Atomic Information Transfer (AIT) for Conserved Quantities (CQ)        or Exchanged Quantities (EQ). (Emulation of quantum        teleportation).    -   Locking in and between computer systems (using AIT above).    -   Transactions (using AIT above). For example, in the electronic        trading of bitcoins or other cryptographic currencies.    -   Replication of information (small-indivisible) or large—with        this protocol providing flow-control and/or error detection        and/or network recovery after an arbitrary number of link        failures.    -   Heartbeats in distributed computing systems: presence management        no longer requires N² traffic to span the whole network, each        link maintains presence within itself, and network-spanning        alerts are created only when presence is lost, or have a need        for application infrastructure spanning.    -   Timeouts can now be replaced with a more universal notion of        “temporal intimacy”, where application liveness does not require        constant cross-system communication.    -   Leader election (now becomes the selection of a        stabilized/entangled tree, which uses the acyclic properties of        the trees to create a single, deterministic, and deadlock-free        result).    -   Consensus (for example, the Paxos, or RAFT protocols may enjoy        more reliable and predictable behavior on top of the        stabilized/entangled trees, and become simpler: role selection        is achieved through local sub-tree selection).    -   Distributed counters (using EQ/CQ to achieve global        increment/decrement operations).    -   Algebraic queries on distributed variables (=, ≠, ≤, ≥, etc.) on        the above distributed counters.

These mechanisms are of particular value in: Cloud computing,distributed computing, file (object) synchronization, financialtransactions and distributed storage systems. A major advantage is thatthere is no logging of if up and if down functions, no observer meansless log traffic, etc.

Adaptive Virtual Systems 100

FIG. 1 shows an example adaptive virtual system 100 according to anembodiment of the present invention. FIG. 1 shows the layered softwarestack. The adaptive virtual systems 100 includes Application Stacks #1to #n, an Earthplane shim 110, a Cloudplane shim 112 and an EarthCorelayers 102. Application Stacks #1 to #n are conventional processingstacks. The Earthplane shim 110 and the Cloudplane shim 112 provideinterface to pool of remaining cores which run applications (eitherunder a single Operating system and containers, or under a virtualmachine hypervisor and guest operating machines). The earth core layers102 comprises a Compute Asset Layer (CAL) 108 on top of physicalresource (Network Asset Layer 104) and object management (Data AssetLayer 106) layers to enable itineracy of both data (files, databases,etc.) and computational entities (virtual machines, distributedapplication webs etc.), virtualizing both the computational environmentand the data they seek to operate on in an available, secure anddefensible infrastructure. The EarthCore layers 102 also includes asecure hypervisor and multicore hardware. The secure hypervisor controlsinitial boot of system, and supervises running entities such asoperating systems, containers and any number of recursively stackedvirtual machines. Additional 1 to p processor cores (multicore hardware)are statically allocated to the Network Asset Layer (NAL) (104), where pis the number of ports on the cell. Additional processor cores aredynamically allocated to the Data Asset Layer (DAL) (106) andComputation Asset layer (CAL) (108), which collectively form theEarthCore layers 102.

This architecture is designed to exploit the metaphor “EarthComputing—the solid ground beneath the clouds.” The metaphor has meaningin what capabilities and behaviors are exhibited by the systems in eachlayer. Cloud computing is ephemeral, as are clouds. The Earth's surfaceis the interface between the Earth and the sky, and is where allpersistent modifications take place. The underground is the immutablecore, where structures and data are stable and persistent, and resilientto whatever perturbation may occur in the Cloudplane (sky).

The Earth Computing cell 100 is by design, an adaptive system designedto tradeoff abundant resources (CPU, Memory, Storage Capacity, NetworkBandwidth, etc.) for scarce resources (Latency, Human Attention, EnergyConsumption, SSD Endurance, etc.). The goal is continuous adaptivityacross all networked resources.

The Earth Computing cell 100 includes a Replica Management Engine,Stacked Graph Overlays and Cell Architecture. The Replica ManagementEngine distills disparate and independent mechanisms for object storage,protection, migration and disposition into a single united engine thatis simpler, more robust and of higher performance than the separatemechanisms it replaces. Objects may be files, databases, Virtual Machine(VM) images, patch files, virus signature files, etc. The Stacked GraphOverlays in conjunction with a MetaData Tensor (MDT) enable the user toidentify, reason about and manipulate large complex sets of digitalassets and their relationships to each other. Three levels of assets(network, data and computation) are managed with overlays thatprogressively abstract from the physical hardware and installed networkcables through a layer of data objects and their specified redundancyneeds to the active itinerant computational entities and data objectsthat perform functions critical to an organization's mission andoperations. The Cell Architecture that unifies networking, storage, andcomputational resources within a single, encapsulated, autonomous, andmodular unit of deployment. The internal structure of the cell comprisesthree functional layers. The lowest layer (network/physical assets) areowned by the organization, the middle layer (object assets) is owned bythe tenants of the infrastructure, and the upper layer is owned anddriven by the users of the system to serve their computationalobjectives. Previous system architectures have failed to achieve theirautonomic goals; previous declarative approaches have similarly failedto achieve their objectives. A key reason for these failures, is afailure to appreciate the scope of scalability of state information as asystem grows. This, in turn, is due (primarily) to a failure to achievean architectural distinction between Global-Eye-View (GEV), andLocal-Observer-View (LOV) algorithms and data structures and gaincontrol over the complexity this entails as systems scale.

The essence of Earth Computing cell I00 and the foundation to its claimof simplicity and robustness, is the establishment of just two classesof system elements at the lowest (physical) layer: Cells and Links.Within each class, all elements in the set are substitutable. Anyelement in the set of available cells may be regarded as a redundantalternative to any of the other elements in the set. Any element in theset of links attached to each cell, may be regarded as a redundantalternative to any other link attached to that cell. This generalizationand full actualization of the notion of n+1 redundancy enables us toachieve the theoretically highest degree of robustness while eliminatingthe need to manage each of the system elements separately.

Cells auto-discover and auto-configure themselves to recursively formcliques (multiple cells connected behind a router), colonies (multiplecliques in a campus) and complexes (many campuses connected worldwide).The Compute Asset Layer 108, the Network Asset Layer 104 and the DataAsset Layer 106 are the three main layers within an adaptive virtualsystems clique structure.

FIG. 2 shows is a block diagram of an example data center plex 200including an entangled clique (the green EarthCore area) within a largerDatacenter or Cloudplane 202 (the blue Cloudplane area) comprisingconventional (legacy) compute (servers and clients) and networkingequipment such as switches, routers, software defined networking (SDN)technologies. EarthCore is an example use case of an entangled cliquecomposed of transitively connected cells 201,203 and entangled links202. More specifically FIG. 2 depicts a datacenter deployment showing anEarthCore, a Cloudplane and an Earthplane/Cloudplane interface 204.

Earth Computing (this invention) is the green area (EarthCore):Entangled Trees are composed of cells 201,203 connected by entangledlinks 202 which directly connect cells without the need for legacyswitches. EarthCore edge cells 203 connect to conventional-prior artsystems through edge cells 203 which provide additional services(entangled tree roots, serialization foci, etc.). EarthCore core cells201 connect only secure (well-known and verified) systems inside theearth core and are not directly connected to the outside world (thecloud plane 206) and provide hidden core services such as participationin entangled tree operations, tree functions, composable security,timing behavior characterization and verification and extendedpersistence data (immutable distributed datastore, entangled tree roots,serialization foci, etc.) security and long-term persistence.

Entangled links emulate subtime as in the Subtime Conjecture. areversible interpretation of quantum processes, where decoherencerepresents an interaction of a measurement with an observing systemwhich itself remains reversible, but which appears to us in a classicalworld as irreversible because information (memory of an event) isreversed (not merely erased by Landauer processes). This alternativeinterpretation of time begets engineering mechanisms which exploit thesemonotonic, successive and reversible processes to enable atomicinformation transfer between cells over a bidirectional communicationlink and to facilitate its ordering of events on distributed lattices.This invention embodies these processes (even though we cannot observethem), in order to provide temporal intimacy between separate systems,and provide a degree of determinism, not through conventional computerscience, but through the knowledge that one or more quantities (such asinformation, mass-energy, charge, spin, color, etc.,) are conserved inphysical processes, or in this case emulated by information packets.

FIG. 3 shows an example architecture 300 of a worldwide data centercomplex including a plurality of distributed datacenters 304. Thedistributed datacenters 304 (multiple islands of entangled cells 201,203) can be connected through network encrypted tunnels (emulating linkentanglement) 302 for geographic distribution, or real quantumtechnology through long haul fiber links 302 between datacentersutilizing fully quantum enabled communication devices and media.

Each EarthCore (datacenter or entangled clique 304) independentlymaintains its own local Structural Temporal Intimacy (STI) usingentangled links 202. These independent datacenters 304 may thenconstruct (at a higher level, and when network communication is good),additional tree overlays (graph covers) over geographic distances toexploit the logical or virtual entanglement, and physical entanglementin the form of entangled transactions in the present invention over WANdistances (with or without the MetaData Tensor (MDT) data structures ontop). The inter-datacenter links 302 above may also use full quantumimplementations with fiber and individual polarized photongenerators/detectors to provide the benefits of long-range communicationin this architecture and event ordering/reversibility andrecovery/repair compatible with the recovery model described by thisinvention.

FIG. 4 shows an example EarthCore 400 (entangled clique) showing edgecells 203 and core cells 201, and their role in the serialization ofdata. FIG. 4 depicts a cross section of a sphere, with edge cells 203,as information processing entities on the surface boundary 304 withinternal core cells 201, and entangled links 202 being composed intoentangled trees 404, for reliable and secure distributed computing andimmutable storage functions ‘inside’ the EarthCore volume. The surfaceelement (2D Earth Surface) 402 is serviced by that edge node 203. Theentangled tree 404 shown is only one of a plurality of trees which existin the enclosed volume. The entangled tree 404 shows a serializationfocus to ensure the consistency of data being modified by the edge cells203. This serialization tree may extend geographically to the entireplex, clique or complex. Various algorithms exist for the selection of(for example) minimum latency spanning trees that connect the cells 203through a common Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). Such serialization treesmay also extend across the different datacenters in the entire complex,as shown in FIG. 3 . The entangled tree 404 shown is only one of aplurality of trees which exist in the enclosed volume.

More particularly, FIG. 4 illustrates a use case showing only entangledlink 202 cell to cell connections within the earth core. These directconnections are able to create emergent structures which are both (a)long-lived, (b) easily detected and repaired failures, (c) explicitentangled token management for recovery, (d) emergent behaviors, such asthe migration of LRU/LFU (Cold) data migrating away from edge, andMRU/MFU data being created at the edge, or migrating back to the edgewhen accessed.

Global-Eye-View (GEV) architectures and algorithms seek to observe orperceive reality from an imaginary global view in an n-dimensionalspacetime. A “vantage point” (one could legitimately equate this to animaginary “vantage time” just as much as to an imaginary “vantagepoint”) from which the programmer or administrator presides over a setof resources as they attempt to control or manage them; a kind of“crow's nest” from which to see the whole ship (or at least the surfaceof its decks), and a panoramic view out to some horizon. The canonicalGEV model is shared-memory.

Local-Observer-View (LOV) architectures and algorithms recognize thatthe only entities we can discover, and be certain they continue toexist, are those which we touch (interact with directly). (Although wecan acquire second hand information about the world through otheragents, this information is necessarily obscured by delays andinterpretation by intermediate nodes. We can never have “perfectly”up-to-date, complete or accurate information about remote nodes (orlinks) in the network. This is not something merely awkward orimpractical from an engineering implementation perspective, it isfundamental.) This results from the principles of constructivemathematics which rejects the notion of existence (∃) without explicitproof and the law of the excluded middle from first-order logic, and therelativity of simultaneity. The canonical LOV model is message passing.

This distinction may appear academic but it becomes vitally importantwhen building scalable distributed systems. The GEV model employedunconsciously and implicitly in conventional architecture and algorithmdesign, leads to systems which exhibit severely restricted scalability,concurrency, and which continuously compound their complexity and costas we try to address their shortcomings incrementally. (GEVarchitectures and algorithms try to represent a complete view of allavailable nodes, which can never compete with the reality observable byphysical computers from their (physically realizable) LOV perspective.

Referring now to FIGS. 5A-5E, FIG. 5A shows the conventional abstractionwithin a networked environment where any conventional computing node 502may address any other conventional computing node 504 in a flat (L2 orL3) address space. The self-node 502 assumes a ‘God's-Eye-View’ (GEV) ofthe entire system (in both space and time). The path abstraction 506 isassumed to have zero (or uniform) latency, and zero (or uniform) failurerates in conventional communications between applications running onthose nodes.

An implicit but frequently unacknowledged assumption in the applicationsis that the paths of each of those from each self-node, to each of theother n nodes is private (isolated and non-interfering). FIG. 5B showswhat happens when all nodes make this assumption. Traffic (inparticular—heartbeats) increase with the square of the number of nodesn², and any conventional shared network quickly becomes overwhelmed.

A further difficulty with this GEV abstraction is that each self-nodemust maintain state to manage all of potential nodes in the system,including sessions with nodes (with applications on them) that it wishesto communicate with, and attempted connections from nodes (andapplications, including malware) that it does not wish to communicatewith.

Even considering only the nodes it wishes to communicate with, thispresents a scalability challenge as the management of state from eachself-node grows as n². Systems which use GEV abstractions in generalsuffer from this scalability difficulty.

While the n² challenge arises with the complexity caused by an increasein the number of nodes (and hence their potential connectivity), an evenmore pernicious scalability challenge comes with the diversity of theelements in the path from the self-node to any other node. Diversitygrows as the power set (2^(n)) in the number of different nodes, i.e. anexponential.

FIG. 5C is a diagram of the conventional way we try to hide thiscomplexity (number, diversity and topology of devices) behind the“cloud” 508 abstraction of a network. Unfortunately, this re-enforcesthe above assumptions of zero (or uniform) latency and zero (or uniform)failure rates in the connections. E.g. a conventional computer nodemakes the same assumptions of latency and connected reliability foranother node right next it which may have a latency in microseconds,with another node on the other side of the network which has a latencyin milliseconds. In WAN connected datacenters, this grows to hundreds ofmilliseconds.

FIG. 5D shows a 16-node system where there are N (N−1)=16(15)=120 links,with each node maintaining a relationship (knowledge and status of)N−1=15 other nodes. FIG. 5A shows that the local state required in eachnode to do this grows as ˜O(N), whereas the total number of links growsas ˜O(N 2) as shown in FIG. 5B. This becomes much more dramatic as Nincreases. At some point, the amount of local state space in each node,and the amount of traffic on the network needed to keep that stateinformation up-to-date, overwhelms a GEV-oriented system, and it will beunable to grow further. (Conventional clusters are an example of a GEVarchitecture, where just the heartbeat traffic alone dominates thesystem bandwidth, with as few as 100 nodes (e.g. Oracle RAC). Experiencewith clusters over the past 2 decades has repeatedly shown that it isimpossible to scale clusters, and for this reason, most real clustersused in the IT industry run in the 2-4 node range).

Significant disadvantages are associated with this abstraction when itcomes to recognizing and healing failures. The conventional view is thatthe cloud has its own healing mechanisms and will (e.g. through IPre-routing) find another way to connect the endpoints that are trying toaddress one another. However, networks do not have persistence, as theircoping mechanism in the face of difficulty is to drop packets. Thedefault assumption is that the endpoints maintain sufficient state sothat they can retry the communication.

Conventional clusters are an example of a GEV architecture, where justthe heartbeat traffic alone dominates the system bandwidth, with as fewas 100 nodes (e.g. Oracle RAC). Experience with clusters over the past 2decades has repeatedly shown that it is exceedingly difficult to scaleclusters, and for this reason, most real clusters used in the ITindustry run in the 2-4 node range.

This is quite inadequate when it comes to providing assurance of CQ/EQ(Conserved Quantities/Exchanged Quantities) in atomic informationtransfer. Firstly, a transmitting node is now required to maintainseparate information (state) regarding each of the other nodes itis/was/intends to communicate with. However (such as in a multicastsituation), it has no idea if disconnected nodes received an atomicinformation packet or not. This illuminates one of the many theoreticaland practical difficulties with multicast.

Once we recognize the limitations of the GEV approach to architectureand programming, we can begin to use the LOV distinction and look at theworld from a single node.

In the present invention, there are no hidden abstractions at the lowest(network) layer that do not provide promises, only explicit mechanisms(such as entangled links) that do provide promises regarding theirintended behavior should they become disconnected from the neighbor, andrest of the clique.

FIG. 5E is graphs of unitary and non-unitary modes of evolution ofquantum processes. FIG. 5E describes the two modes of evolution ofquantum processes (typical of entanglement), the first being the unitaryevolution which is reversible, linear and lossless; and the second,non-unitary evolution which is irreversible and dissipative. Theprobability amplitude (represented by the 45 degree blue vector in thefigure on the left) remains indefinitely in stasis until it decoheres(the process of quantum collapse). After the collapse, the measurementreveals itself as either spin up (the vertical blue vector in the topfigure), or spin down (the horizontal blue vector in the bottom figure).The √2 is a normalization factor to ensure that the probabilities (↑+↓)sum to 1. The angle between the probability amplitude for those twopopulations in that real Hilbert space measures the distinguishabilityof those two populations. “One finds oneself forced to probabilityamplitude by the very concept of distinguishability”—John Wheeler, 1999.

The Earth Computing Cell I00 is a node in network architecture in whichthe endpoints are replicas of an object, not nodes (or servers) as inconventional networking. Although we can utilize an IP networking wherethe connections between nodes provide a constraint overlay, theaddressing of objects occurs at a layer above that, and is able tocontinuously adapt (follow) the replication, evaporation and apparentitinerant behavior of replicas belonging to that object.

Stacked Graph Overlays. Earth Computing builds its foundation by takinga base graph G=(V, E), defined by the hardware resources (systems andcables), and rigorously and systematically characterizing thespatiotemporal relationships possible on top of that graph; andrecognizing that all processes (agents) and their interactions(communication) are necessarily constrained to this physical graph. Weexplicitly do not abstract away the key issues of latency andreliability as is done in other approaches, at least not at the level ofthis base graph G.

We then define higher level recursive covering graphs G/ on top of G, asAlong Side (AS) or Recursively Constrained (RC). Every graph G/ may havezero or more AS covering graphs, each of which may be a RC overlay for ayet higher level covering graph. Interactive Local Observer View (LOV)algorithms, at a specified security level, cannot distinguish theunderlying graph G from any covering graph G/, G//, G///, etc. So thisarrangement allows us to progressively manage abstractions for graphs ofentities such as sets of hardware resources (physical assets), virtualresources (digital assets), administrative domains (jurisdictions andtenants) and dynamic coherency graphs, all of which may be evolving intheir cardinality and topology due to resource variation, topologyevolution and response to perturbations.

The fundamental toolset in Earth Computing comprises:

Entangled Links→Resiliency Web.

Cells+Links=Cell Trees/For every clique there are Cq trees, where Cq isthe number of cells in that clique. Note that Cn is an evolving number.New trees are created and old ones are torn down as cells come and go.Each cell is built independently with the DTA algorithm. The same istrue for all domains (d) where d={cell|clique|colony|complex}

Stacked Graph Overlays:

1. The fundamental physical constraint layer in Earth Computing isliterally the set of cells and physical cables connecting them. In anyreal network, this is reasonably a sparse network with islands ofdensely connected cells, such as within datacenters with links withlatency characteristics comprising a minimum, proportional to the sum ofthe length of the cables and transit delays through switches and routers(under no, or low-load based conditions), and an increasing function,according to the queuing delays imposed by bandwidth load contention.

2. The “base” logical layer of Cell Trees, where each cell in the domainbuilds a spanning tree with itself as root, its nearest neighbors aschildren, and other cells as progressively more distant descendants. Thenet result will be an overlaid mesh of cell trees.

3. On top of the base set of cell trees, (the underlay), any number ofoverlays maybe recursively stacked, either as alongside (AS) as siblingtrees on top of the same base tree on top of the graph T=(V, E(=V−1), orrecursively Stacked (RS) on top of each other giving rise to T/ T// T///etc. Each tree T n=(V, E(=V−1)) spans V n≤V n−1 and En≤En−I where c \ inV.

4. Furthermore, each tree is given a “type”. There are any number oftypes which may be assigned, these are specified in each of the threelayer descriptions. The only constraint is that CAL layer types existonly on top of DAL layer types. CAL layer types exist either on DALlayer types, or on other CAL layer types, and DAL layer types exist onNAL layer types, or other DAL layer types.

Definition: Cells are self-contained units of storage, and include theirown computation, storage, and routing resources. Cells are encapsulatedby a physical and logical membrane, to represent complete, autonomousunits of deployment (SKU), replacement (FRU) spanning a single, locallyidentifiable failure domain, e.g., has no common failure modes sharedwith other cells. The preferred embodiment of a cell includes a its ownsource of energy, sufficient to manage its own graceful shutdown andpower-up if main power to the cell is either absent or has failed.

Cells are the fundamental physical units of storage. (Cells contain anumber of storage devices such as spinning media, solid state or DRAMall cells have a battery which can maintain their memory in the event ofa power failure, and which can be used to save the contents of memory todisk in the case of a power failure used against them to both nullifytheir efforts (perhaps extensively prolonging them in their own game ofwhack-a-mole without realizing it).) From an operational perspective,cells are not divisible, they do not contain user oradministrator-serviceable parts inside. A cell is an individual,identifiable failure domain. The Field-Replaceable Unit (FRU) is thecell as a whole. This strict modularization is necessary achieve a goalof zero administration, this in-turn enables ultra-resilience. The cellis also a substitutable unit of deployment, a Stock-Keeping Unit (SKU)from a procurement and deployment perspective.

Definition: Agents are the fundamental logical units of computationAgents (likeMonads) are not divisible, they do not contain programmer-or administrator-modifiable parts; they contain within themselves, allthe elements required for autonomous functionality, and the ability torespond to events impinging on the cell.

While agents are singular computational entities (even when they forkand join sub-processes), links are a different kind of computationalentity, with very different characteristics: they require theinteraction of both sides of the link in order to maintain their“encapsulated” property (with both connected and disconnected modes).

This is a fundamentally different computational behavior—one which isoften referred to as interactions, or synchronizations from the point ofview of the agents. But from the point of view of the links, they seethe agents as being driven causally from what they do, which can bedriven equally from either side, unlike in a client-server or RPCenvironment, which is unidirectional in its hierarchical view of a“causality direction”.

A ‘channel’ can be regarded as a process in which ‘events’ happen inpairs comprising the atomic transmission and reception of some unit ofinformation. A CSP or π-calculus channel may be implemented readily ontop of entangled links.

Definition: Links are fundamental units of communication. Links areindivisible. They are preferably a single cable (or fiber) directlyconnecting two cells, in combination with the receiving, transformingand transmitting mechanisms on both ends of the cable (or fiber).

Links never fail in an inconsistent state; and when perturbations dooccur (through, for example, physical disruption of the path orexogenous events in the cells on either side), that they ‘break” in amode which is successively reversible. This goal may be achieved byreversible state machines and an associated protocol between them.

The benefits of Entangled Links include:

Fast to Fail: Immediate fail. Don't need to wait for the other side totimeout.

Minimum Possible Latency: If the link is given something to transport,it will either fail immediately or transmit immediately.

Guaranteed Delivery: If the link accepts it, it promises to deliver it.

For every implementation we would have requirements related to each ofthese properties. We need demonstrable proofs that ensure each of theseproperties are maintained by the implementation.

Links may be implemented with network ports, cables, switches, routers,etc., but they are still thought of and managed as indivisible units ofcommunication, and by a single agent (made up from a single(distributed) state machine (DSM) with complimentary parts on each sideof the link, and not a replicated state machine (RSM) with instances oneach side of the link).

While agents are singular temporal entities (even when they fork andjoin sub-processes), links are a different kind of “singular” temporalentity: they require the interaction of both sides of the link in orderto maintain their “connected” property. This is a fundamentallydifferent temporal behavior—one which is often referred to asinteractions, or synchronizations, in contrast to Recursively Enumerable(RE) (Turing Machines) from the point of view of the agents. But fromthe point of view of the links, they see the agents as being drivencausally from what they do, which can be driven equally from eitherside, unlike in a client-server or RPC environment, which isunidirectional in its hierarchical view of a “causality direction”.

Definition: Entangled Links (ENTL) are closely coupled bipartiterelationships (across links) which can characterize, among other things,their local view of availability (current state and historical average),latency (including statistical measures of variance), and securesessions (which require reliable events to establish and tear down).

The Earth Computing Infrastructure 304 is an element in an agent-basedsystem: every entity (cell, link, tree, workspace, and data object) inthe system has a uniquely assigned agent which manages that entity.Agents are designed to observe and adapt to their environment and tocompete with other agents for resources, continually trading offabundant resources for scarce resources.

The abundant resources in a cell include network (in the form of ports,and bandwidth or carrying capacity of each port), storage (in the formof disks, SSD's or battery-backed up RAM or some combination of allthree), and compute (in the form of processor(s) with one or morecores).

When cells come up (either the first time, or otherwise) they comparetheir capabilities with their siblings, and go through a process ofself-virtualization and self-specialization to adapt to theirenvironment. Examples of the tradeoffs that can be made are as follows:

-   -   If a cell discovers that it has a large amount of memory and        processing power, it may virtualize itself into several        independent sub-cells operating in different virtual machines on        a common Hypervisor, and to offer a 3rd level of virtualization        to support legacy applications.    -   If a cell discovers that it has a disproportionate number of        ports relative to its siblings (say 48 or 64 instead of 6 or 8),        then it may choose to virtualize into independent sub-cells        which specialize into routing cells, which favor serendipitous        replicas for spatial performance, assigning 6-8 physical ports        to each virtual cell.    -   If a cell discovers it has a large amount of storage, relative        to its siblings, then it may specialize into a stable        persistence cell, ready to archive objects rather than to host        applications or file access protocols which actively modify        them.

Our foundational approach is built on a strategy of adaptivity. Forexample, the EC network is deliberately chosen to be multi-hop (in awormhole-routed, not a store and forward context). This not only allowsus to build the structures which maintain the virtual relationships, andprovide for Structural Temporal Integrity (STI), it also allows us tomonitor and adapt the bandwidth utilization of the current cell withwhat it sees vicariously as flows passing through itself, and can adapt(for example, the temporal intimacy of its coherency layers with theavailability of bandwidth to its sibling replicas).

The EC Infrastructure 304 explicitly provides for the securecommunication of global policies to individual cells, entire cliques,colonies or complexes, or to some “slice” of the infrastructure definedby jurisdictions, organizations and tenants.

Entangled Links

The present invention relates to the individual connections betweencomputers in a dynamically distributed computing environment whereperturbations (reconfigurations, failures, disasters, attacks) areinevitable and expected.

Entangled links are encapsulated computational entities on which tobuild and maintain an active bipartite relationship over a chain of I/Omechanisms and passive elements in the communication path between pairsof computers, using an idempotent, reversible token exchange methodwhich presents no externally observable (persistable) “change” until atransfer of information needs to occur between the cells, and whichmaintains the potential for bounded (or unbounded) reversibility, incase the intended information dispatched by an agent on a source cell isnot received or acceptance completed by an agent on a destination cell.

Entangled links are singular computational entities comprised of packetexchanges between the most fundamental (simplest, least possible)mechanism at each end of a physical channel, connecting exactly twocomputers. Each half maintains entanglement only with its identifiableand authenticated other half, laying a new foundation upon which tobuild secure, ultra-reliable, transaction-oriented logical channels.Links are individual units, computationally independent and functionallyorthogonal to all other processes (operating systems, applications oragent-individuals) in the cells they connect. They enable a richcharacterization of local Local Observer View (LOV) link state based ona model of liveness where progress is held eternally in stasis untileither side chooses to move their state forward by initiating orcompleting a transfer of information. Unlike state change in agents,which is monotonic and irreversible, state change in links is successiveand reversible; providing a basis for guaranteed information transfer.

By arranging an initial negotiation protocol where the agents identifythemselves and the cells they execute thereon, and requiring that anycontinuation of the entanglement after a perturbation is to the samecell with the same temporal characteristics, the mechanism will enable afoundation for secure (authenticated) channels, reliable events to buildand tear them down, and significantly increase the difficulty of anattacker implementing man in the middle attacks.

The link entanglement mechanism resides outside the conventional notionof a program but may be recruited by programs or agents directly throughlanguage primitives (or library functions) for computation in dynamicdistributed environments where computational resources may vary, theirtopology evolves, and each of its cooperating agents wishes to maintaindata structures that represent optimal awareness of the properfunctioning of and communicability with other cooperating agents in thesystem, without the detrimental effects of latencies, timeouts, andtransient communication failures as the system scales.

A software implementation of an entangled link encapsulates the cables,the interface at each end, and the driver and interrupt handler code atboth ends into a single abstraction that has properties that are (a)necessary for its composition into formal specifications andmathematical validation of network operations, and (b) to enable aprogrammatic context which includes a rich awareness of localconnectedness that may be composed into graphs and exploited bydistributed systems as they scale.

Prior means of atomic information transfer in applications rely on a GEVmechanism, where programmers use conventional memory locking ortransactional memory (of software transactional memory) in sharedmemory. Algorithms to implement these include, for example, two-phasecommit, paxos, or some other group consensus protocol based on theserializability of shared memory. This requires that any form of atomicinformation transfer, including that required for transactions, tokenconservation or distributed counting, must be implemented in theapplication layer.

FIG. 6A shows a block diagram of a conventional architecture withconventional transactions shown as blue shading. The conventionaltransactions are comprised of many mechanisms and many fault domains.There are a number of disadvantages with such a configuration includingincreased latency, decreased reliability, scalability challenges and aninability to achieve failure domain independence.

FIG. 6B is a block diagram of an entangled transaction using theindependent compute infrastructure of the present invention. TheEntangled Transactions provides one simple low-level fault domain withinwhich the reversible computing entity lives (202).

Interworking with Conventional Networking Hardware. This inventionrelates to hardware support for: (a) Entangled Links (ENTL) (b) networkassisted transactions, (c) reliable replication (d) distributed countingfor CQ/EQ (Conserved Quantities/Exchanged Quantities), (e) SerializationFoci (f) Priority Queue Engine (PQE).

Unlike conventional network protocols, entanglement (and theirassociated beacon) packets do not need to be compatible with any legacyhardware or software. The only exception being that they do not causefaults or overload legacy hardware or software. A preferred embodimentis to make these mechanisms benignly incompatible, in order to provideisolation between Earth Computing (EC) systems (and particularly corecells), and legacy systems.

In a nutshell, as long as the MC hardware (and any intermediate L2/L3switches) remain compatible within EC domains, the protocols betweencore cells may be distinctly incompatible with legacy systems,establishing a new industry standard for Earth Computing Installations;free of historical baggage and obsolete mechanisms of past networkingtechnologies. It is a matter of strategic planning for the entity whichowns these inventions to choose to allow them to be kept proprietary,submitted as standards, or supplemented by open-source or open-hardwarestrategies. However, it is in the very nature of these inventions toprovide businesses with such a choice.

Special Packet Rejection

Entangled (and their associated beacon) packets are special in the sensethat they should be dropped or rejected by legacy hardware and software.They may be roughly separated into two types: Those which are locallyrouted, and those that may be routed to remote locations for the sametenant in distributed datacenter plexs. Both types of “special” packetsmay have a header type that identifies them easily at the lowest levelprocessing of network packets, such as a special ether-type field inEthernet packets, or some other special field in an IP header whenrouted within an encapsulation protocol such as NVGRE (NetworkVirtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation) or VXLAN (VirtualExtensible LAN). Selecting a format that we know will be rejected bymost or all legacy hardware provides added security by isolatingentanglement packets from other traffic, and limiting interference toother resources in legacy systems (benign incompatibility).

Any method of isolating (or discriminating) legacy systems from EarthComputing underlay nodes may be utilized. For example, deliberatelysetting the packet length field of Ethernet or IP header incorrectly maymake the entanglement (or beacon) packets appear to be torn,incompatible, or incorrectly formatted in the lowest layer of hardware(or firmware), creating a natural discrimination in the MC, switch orrouter, which will be difficult to penetrate by conventional packetsdriven by legacy software, including malware.

Multi-Tenant Selection

The above packet rejection techniques may also be used as an addeddiscrimination technique for: (a) different jurisdictions that happen touse the same infrastructure, (b) different tenants in the sameinfrastructure or (c) different trees that a tenant may wish to be keptseparate (e.g., isolated from searches or neighbor recognition orattachment). This is in addition to any discrimination techniquesprovided by NVGRE or VXLAN. Keep in mind that the primary managed objectin an Earth Computing environment is a cell tree (which may be entangledor not), not a “network” in the normal sense. As described in the GVM(Graph Virtual Machine) disclosure, these trees may be addressed “as awhole” (i.e., equivalent to a flooding broadcast), or as somealgebraically specified graph cover or subtree.

Hardware Support for Entangled Links

Entangled Links are autonomous computational entities, independent ofand isolated from the normal software (including hypervisors) running ona computer. In a previous disclosure, we have described a potentialimplementation in the interrupt service routine of the device driverexecuting on a dedicated side or sequestered core, or in the firmware ofthe MC.

That same functionality may also be implemented purely in the hardware,or in some combination of hardware and firmware in the MC in a computeror switch, and expands on the number and types of hardware supportedfunctions that may be desirable to implement. Because one purpose of theentanglement mechanism is to maximize robustness, we recognize theimportance of the entangled link mechanism (e.g. beacon packets used fordiscovery and rendezvous, and the entanglement packets used for presencemanagement), which may be started immediately by the hardware as soon asit receives stable power and/or a hardware reset, even before anyhypervisor or operating system initializes it.

Because another purpose of this mechanism is to ensure security of thephysical link to the next cell, we also prefer an implementation wherethe link keys are hidden from all the software. I.e., symmetric keygeneration and key storage are maintained privately in the NIC. The linkidentifier (which may be cryptographically derived from the symmetrickey) may, however, be “read” by the local secure agent in order tomaintain persistence of the tree in a strict forwarding arrangementwhere cells forward encrypted packets through non-participating cells orswitches.

A preferred implementation of the entangled link protocol is for it tobe maintained by the hardware at all times, from boot up until powerfails. A preferred embodiment would be for there to be no way for thesoftware to start or stop the entanglement packets, rather it would be aproperty of the device itself. The MC may, however, replace its firmwarewith a signed copy of new firmware that is cryptographically coherentwith previous versions of the MC firmware.

The hardware entanglement mechanism “steps aside” i.e., suspendstransmission of entanglement packets when the software in the computerwishes to send conventional data viaits normal protocol stack. However,one or more spare “bits” in the Ethernet header (ether-type) or UDP/IPpacket header may be used to signal the ongoing “presence” of anentangled relationship.

Flow-balancing on each link may also be incorporated in the ENTL packetsby the hardware. E.g., credit based flow control is now “underneath” theoperating system and protocol stacks, but may be provided as a parameterto links (encrypted to prevent visibility or corruption by man in themiddle attacks).

FIG. 6C shows a conventional computing architecture showing itsreliability and scalablity problems. Network Virtualization DecreasesPerformance/Scalability & Reliability/Availability: (or why we needdirect server to server connections—at least within racks, and maybebetween them too). There are at least four challenges with theconventional way that distributed systems manage transactions:

First Problem 602: Performance/Scalability. Locking based concurrencycontrol inhibits scalability. Figure courtesy: Harizopoulos et. al.,“OLTP through the looking glass, and what we found there”, Proc. ACMSIGMOD international conference on Management of data, 2008. This is ontop of the Network Stack delays described below.

Second Problem 604: Excessive Latency in the Network Path. (Tablecourtesy: Rumble et. al., “Its time for low Latency”, Proc 13th Usenixconference on hot topics in Operating Systems, 2011.

Component Delay Round-Trip Network Switch 10-30 μs 100-300 μs NetworkInterface Card 2.5-32 μs 10-128 μs OS Network Stack 15 μs 60 μs Speed ofLight (in Fiber) 5 ns/m 0.6-1.2 μs

Third Problem 606: Reliability/Availability. Dominant traffic isEast-West. Instead of the (legacy) assumed North-South direction due toNetwork virtualization (SDN) and VM Migration (SDDC). (Gartner:Competitive Landscape: Data Center Ethernet Switches, Worldwide, 2011Update).

Fourth problem 608: Unable to achieve failure domain independence (FDI).severely limits availability. Too many devices in the path for server toserver communication. Reliability issue (Markov chain).

ENTL's exist at the lowest possible level in the computational structureof nodes (below all application, kernel and network stack processing),ensuring the minimum possible mechanism (code-paths and schedulingmechanisms) on either side of the link, enabling the maximum possiblereliability of the link as a singular computational entity on which wecan accommodate breaks and healing with mathematical precision, whichcan in turn be utilized by agents to make more diverse and potentiallyappropriate responses to perturbations.

Dealing with process crashes and lossy links is a well-known problem intheoretical computer science, and one which is addressed at its mostfundamental level by the notion of entangled links.

In some embodiments, this mechanism is implemented as a singledistributed state machine, not a replicated state machine. From thesedescriptions, it should be clear that a main distinction of entangledlinks (ENTL) is that they are a single symmetric state machine, not aclassical replicated state machine (RSM), where one side must be themaster and the other is the slave. ENTL contains the physical connectingmedia as well as the NIC/MAC and software elements, in an independenttiming domain. If the packet is lost, the state machine stops. Thismakes entangled links exquisitely sensitive to packet loss (which is theintent). It is implemented as an event driven mechanism, where eventsduring the entanglement state are purely local, and the events come fromthe outside of a the links (e.g. from local cell agents).

Referring now to FIG. 7A, an embodiment for a cell 700 is shown. Thecell 700 comprises cell hardware 702, cell software 704, a networkinterface controller 706 and a network connector 708. FIG. 7Aillustrates the cell 7000 being formed from a cell agent and a pluralityof network interface controllers 706. The cell hardware 702 isrepresented as a hexagon in FIG. 7 and may include a processor, memory,storage and at least four ports. In this specific example, the cellhardware 702 includes six physical network ports. Each of the physicalports corresponds to a network connector 708. The cell 700 also includescell software 704 such as a primary or cell agent. The operation of theprimary agent and the cell software 704 is operable on the cell hardware702 and will be described in more detail below. The cell hardware 702can be physically coupled to other cells 700 via the network connector708 as part of forming an entangled link 710. The network connector 708is coupled by a network interface controller 706 to the cell hardware702.

FIG. 7B illustrates another embodiment for the cell 700 being formedfrom a routing agent core and a plurality of side core networksentinels. Network Sentinel(s) 712 are dedicated cores per-port:interrupt driven event processing. This takes care of discovery,entanglement, tree building (and healing). This may also includeencryption, packet filtering and authentication on behalf of thetree(s), and this cell. The Routing Agent 714 provides cut-throughrouting from one port to another in the NAL, including routing to other(hypervisor and application) cores in this cell.

FIG. 8A is a block diagram of the computational entities necessary foran entangled link 710. The computational entities necessary to create anentangled link 710 include: a pair of cells 802, a pair of cell agents704 each operable on a respective encapsulated computer node 802, a pairof transformation elements 804 at each end of a software synchronizationdomain of the entangled link 710. The cells 802 are any computingplatform capable of executing action specified by the agent 704 in thecell. The agent 704 is software or routines for cooperating with anotheragent 704 as will be described in more detail below to maintain thesoftware synchronization domain of the entangled link. Thetransformation units 804 are used to exchange a token between the cells700. FIG. 8A the simple abstraction of cells and links, and thecompletely independent hardware/software synchronization domain of theentangled link and the hardware/software synchronization domain of thecell agents on either side.

Matrix Transformations.

TABLE 1 Zero Vector A B A_(ij) = Transform AB Comments [a, −b; (e.g. bitResult of Zero Vector Transmission b, a] flip) Transform Mode 0 0 0 1 00 No connection. Self is 0 0 1 0 0 0 simply announcing its presence butnot requesting entanglement. May be used for a sub-beacon packet (aperiodic presence management inquiry used in low-power dissipation mode)

TABLE 2 Identity Matrix B A Transform AB Incoming (e.g. bit Result ofComments Packet flip) Transform Identity Matrix (Pauli 0) 1 0 0 1 0 0Identity Matrix. Transforms 0 1 1 0 0 0 (with example bit flip operator)into Zero vector transmission mode. Pattern implies each cell isconnected to itself in the GEV Adjacency Matrix, result of transformimplies not in entanglement state.

TABLE 3 Skew Symmetric Matrix B A Transform AB Incoming (e.g. bit Resultof Comments Packet flip) Transform Skew Symmetric Matrix 0 1 0 1 0 −1Skew symmetric Matrix. −1 0 1 0 1 0 Trace = 0 (information is in thelink) (with Pauli matrix x/1)

TABLE 4 Pauli Matrix B A Transform AB Incoming (e.g. phase Result ofComments Packet flip) Transform Pauli Matrix (z/3) 1 1 1 0 1 0 PauliMatrix (z/3) 1 1 0 −1 0 −1

Note: the determinant of a Pauli matrix=−1, trace=0 and eigenvalues are±1. These facts are incorporated into the mechanism described herein inorder to recognize (one possible way) when the link has achieved, or hasbroken out of entanglement mode, or is intended (by one side or theother) to elevate the state to some application desired function, suchas Atomic Information Transfer (AIT) which requires more than a simpletwo state view within the LOV (subtime) perspective of the link.

The above is standard matrix mathematics. This invention uses these onlyas one of several possible transforms to drive the behavior of the linkinto and out of: entanglement, AIT, and other reversible applicationfunction modes.

The following example, illustrates potential interpretations of thestate of the link, when examined by either LOV or GEV modes. Assume twocells, labeled a and b:

TABLE 5 State Transformation Within The Link B A Transform AB CommentsIncoming (e.g. bit Result of Simple Entanglement Packet flip) TransformSeeking Mode 0 1 0 −1 0 0 Self receives packet A, applies 0 0 1 0 1 0transform B and responds with packet AB. From the perspective of b, thismeans that b has received a packet from a. i.e. it has gained a unit ofinformation (it now know that a exists) 0 0 0 −1 0 −1 Self receivespacket A, applies 1 0 1 0 0 0 transform B and responds with packet AB.From the perspective of a, this means that a has received a packet fromb. i.e. it has gained a unit of information (it now know that b exists)0 −1 0 −1 0 0 Self receives packet A, applies 0 0 1 0 −1 0 transform Band responds with packet AB. From the perspective of a, it has now losta unit of information to the link, which may or may not be received byb. 0 0 0 −1 0 1 Self receives packet A, applies −1 0 1 0 0 0 transform Band responds with packet AB. Cycle complete, begins again as shownabove, with AB being sent as {0, 1, 0, 0}, from the perspective of b, ithas now lost a unit of information to the link, which may or may not bereceived by b.

TABLE 6 Optional Packet Counting B A Transform AB Incoming (e.g. phaseResult of Comments Packet flip) Transform Identity Matrix 0 2 1 0 0 0From the perspective of b, 0 0 0 −1 0 0 this may be interpreted as ahaving sent 2 packets (or a packet containing an incrementing integer).Or, it has gained new information from a, that either (i) a continues toseek an entanglement with b, or (ii) that a has not received thereciprocal packet from b (if b sent one).

As the above table (6) shows, how an entry may continue to increment, inwhich case b can see that a is continuing to attempt to establishcommunication with a, this value can continue to increment to someceiling, based on the size of the integer field in this data structure,with the maximum ceiling maintained indefinitely as new packets continueto arrive, or, the entry may rollover (modular arithmetic), with somenotification (or not) to the local agent of some number of ticks reached(notification to GEV mode).

The entries in the above tables for the incoming packet matrix, and thetransformation matrix are complimentary in LOV (Link view), butindistinguishable from the GEV (Agent view). The very act of copying thedata from the synchronization domain of the link to the synchronizationdomain of the cell agent will unavoidably perturb the fragileentanglement and reduce some of the benefits of this invention.

A common perspective may be made by interpreting the elements in the(for example 2×2) matrix as follows (assume adjacency matrix, connectingtwo cells, a and b):

Top Left

+1 Cell a is connected with itself, it pushes out a positive bit ofinformation, and receives it back. This represents connectioninformation.

0 Cell a is not connected with itself, whatever it pushes out, itreceives nothing back.

−1 Cell a is connected with itself, it pushes out a negative bit ofinformation, and receives it back. (This may be used with one or more ofthe transforms to sum to zero in the following transmission). Thisrepresents connection information. When it is negative, it implies thegiving up of an element of information from a′ s perspective.

Top Right

+1 Cell a is connected to cell b. This is the mutual information in thelink, a positive bit. This may be transformed by the local operator intothe next step in the state machine hunt toward or away from entanglementor some other functional mode desired by the applications/operatingsystems above. This represents potential entanglement information whenappropriately combined with other aspects of the description below.

0 This is the mutual information in the link, Zero information.

−1 This is the mutual information in the link, a negative bit. This maybe transformed by the local operator into the next step in the hunttoward or away from entanglement. When it is negative, it may imply thereversal of time from the perspective of the sender.

Bottom Left

+1 Cell b is connected to cell a. This is the mutual information in thelink, a positive bit. This may be transformed by the local operator intothe next step in the hunt toward or away from entanglement.

0 This is the mutual information in the link, Zero information.

−1 This is the mutual information in the link, a negative bit. This maybe transformed by the local operator into the next step in the hunttoward or away from entanglement. When it is negative, it may imply thereversal of time the perspective of the receiver.

Bottom Right

+1 Cell b is connected with itself, it pushes out a positive bit ofinformation, and receives it back. This represents connectioninformation.

0 Cell b is not connected with itself, whatever it pushes out, itreceives nothing back.

−1 Cell b is connected with itself, it pushes out a negative bit ofinformation, and receives it back. (This may be used with one or more ofthe transforms to sum zero in the following transmission). Thisrepresents connection information. When it is negative, it may imply thereversal of time.

From this perspective, one can construct a number of paths (sequenceswithin the link) to progress the link from unconnected, unentangled, toconnected and entangled (or other modes to support specific applicationneeds, such as counting, transactions or other application specificfunction or behaviors described in the field of use section).

The above matrix method is only one method. Other methods include thesubsynchronous exchange of packets to synchronize state machines on eachside of the link. These methods may include binary codes where only onebit changes at a time and there are sufficient bits in the packet todistinguish forward from backwards operation (and thus forward vsreversible evolution can be locally—but not globally-distinguished).Subsynchronous implies that the link is self-synchronizing, and its timedomain is fully-asynchronous with the agents in each cell on either sideof the link. This implies also that, for example, the link is not slavedto the CPU clock on either side.

The matrix methods described above are only one method. Other methodsinclude the subsynchronous exchange of packets to synchronize statemachines on each side of the link. These methods may include binarycodes where only one bit changes at a time (and thus forward vsreversible evolution can be distinguished). The word subsynchronousimplies that the link is synchronous with itself, and its time domain isitself (preferably) fully-asynchronous with the agents in each cell oneither side of the link.

In Quantum Entanglement (QM), the wave function Ψ=|↑>+|↓> (the sum oftwo complex vectors) where two alternative states (say spin-up andspin-down) are expressible as a single, shared state across twospatially separated and independent subsystems. Measurements on eithersubsystem yield either an up state or a down state on one end, and itscompliment (down or up respectively) on the other end. This behavior hasbeen verified to take place instantaneously (i.e., without regard to thespeed of light across their spatial separation) in the time correlatedevent record of appropriately prepared experiments.

In a physical media such as a fiber optic cable, this shared state canbe achieved with polarized single photon emitters and detectors in atrue quantum sense. This invention recognizes that certain desirableproperties of quantum entanglement can be emulated using conventionalpackets and electronic signaling, provided that mechanisms such as thosedescribed in these provisional applications obey certain constraintsthat are not currently used or may not even be present in today'scommunication systems. Also, with this invention, because of the precisenature of this shared state even with conventional packets andelectronic signaling, we can achieve a much greater certainty ofrecoverability after failures, disasters and attacks (including cyber),than would be possible with conventional computer communicationprotocols, because of its more precise discrimination of the stateswithin the computer which determine serializability operations andconsistency of data.

This invention describes several methods for emulation of this sharedstate in a bipartite communication link. The key requirement is thatinformation remains conserved in the link as a whole. This may beguaranteed by the electronic signaling method, the packet protocol, orboth; such that under all measurable circumstances, the state of oneside of the link is always the complement of the other. In a classicalsense, situations where the bit (or transition) has been sent by oneside, but not yet received by the other side may be identifiable byintermediate states, such as that described above for a 4-state sequenceHowever, the temporal relationships between the bit patterns on eachdirectional path of the connection, and in particular the selfsynchronization of the link within its own timing domain, without regardto synchronization domains in the cells (computers) on both sides, is afundamental mechanism that has not been invented to date.

In one emulation using electronic signaling, we achieve a sufficientlysimilar effect by using any method that maintains single reversibletransition events. For example, in modem digital modulation schemes suchas QAM, data is transmitted in symbols of n bits at a time in a Graycode (or other code where only 1 transition or bit at a time ischanged).

A minimum of two bits of Gray code are required at either end of thebidirectional communication link to achieve a reversible Gray code.Three or more bits provide additional facility to stack successivelyreversible transactions on top of each other, or pipeline them on longlinks.

A simple arrangement for entanglement emulation would be for eachtransmitter/receiver pair to reflect what it sees on its incoming pathback on its transmitting path so that it remains subsynchronous with itscommunication partner. In the case of a 2-bit reversible Gray code,which are maintained on both sides in a register, will allow either sideto move the link forward or backwards in their respective states.However, the performance of this system will be limited by the speed oflight traversal from one endpoint to another. This is where thisinvention, in conjunction with the switchless interconnection schemedescribed above(with the shortest possible physical connections betweennodes), yields substantial benefits in performance and reliability.

Additional bits in the Gray Code, or alternative Gray code types (suchas monotonic) may be used in conjunction with the entangled back topacket invention (described in this and previous provisionalapplications) to provide a synchronized back to back arrangement betweenthe entangled pair, capable of forward or backwards evolution of anAtomic Information Transfer (AIT).

The entanglement protocol may use modular or monotonic Gray arithmetic.Only one-bit changes at a time. A reversal is distinguishable, and areversal of the reversal is also distinguishable. This may be achievedwith a minimum of a two-bit Gray code, but is significantly enhancedwith a multiple-bit Gray code.

The protocol on each end of wire emulates a photon reflection: when oneside goes forward, the other goes backwards. Entanglement may then beconsidered as a continuously oscillating Gray Code with no discernibleforward or backward motion (short term DC balance).

Transaction flow may proceed with continuous Gray Code, to some highermodulo number (e.g. 8 bits for 10 Gb Ethernet lane) with 8B/10B or64B/66B or any arbitrary XB/YB encoding.

Emulation by Disparity Codes

The running disparity may be used to indicate the currently expecteddirection of an AIT. For example, one symbol is used for one party toexpress that it thinks it has the token, the other symbol (for the samecode) is used for one party to express that it thinks the other partyhas the token. Instead of the running parity being ±1, entanglementpackets may use ±n, where n is some integer. Although greater excursionsof DC local balance (and transition density) may take place, long termDC balance is preserved. This reflects the property that the informationis trapped inside the entangled link until such time that the cell agenton either side wishes to execute a transaction which seeds a new rootfor a direction of causal action on the data.

Entangled Link Synchronization Domains. 1OG bit/sec Ethernet providesmultiple parallel data ‘lanes’ to send data between transmitters andreceivers. Data bytes are sent round-robin across each of four lanes,numbered 0 to 3. The first byte aligns to Lane 0, the second to Lane 1,the third to Lane 2, the fourth to Lane 3, the fifth byte goes back toback to Lane 0, etc.

A hardware based entanglement method can replace the idle packets withentanglement packets (which in turn can be replaced by atomicinformation transfer packets or other application desired reversiblefunctions).

Entangled Link (ENTL) Synchronization Domains. Entangled links 710 aretheir own independent synchronization domains. Cell Agents 704 havetheir own independent synchronization domains (tied to the localcomputer clock). These synchronization domains are bridged by the cellinterfaces.

Note that the boundaries of the entangled part of the link starts andends at the boundary of the physical cell, as far removed as possiblefrom the internal timing domains of the cell and cell agent.

Entangled Transaction (ENTT) Buffer Implementation (FIG. 29A).Entanglement transaction buffers may be included in both transmitter andreceiver. These buffers may be inside the synchronization domain of thecell agents, but the preferred embodiment is for them to be includedwithin the entangled link timing domain. The resynchronization requiredat either end of the bipartite link is different for transmit andreceive. For the transmitter, the ENTL timing domain must occasionallysample the interface registers written by the cell agent. For receiver,the ENTL timing domain must deposit the information in a buffer that canbe sampled by the cell agent. In this way, the Entanglement Link (ENTL)and Entanglement Transaction (ENTT) packets may be distinguished.

Ethernet frames have clearly defined begin and end delimiter patternsand a 12-byte inter frame gap (IFG). Traditionally, this IFG wasdesigned to reduce the number of collisions between transmitters, andconstrained the size of the Ethernet network. This was done away with inmore recent Full-Duplex standards.

These buffers do not keep information regarding the state. However, whenan entanglement link packet is exchanged for an entanglement transactionpacket, the buffers persist in the state indefinitely, while capturedentanglement transaction packets are never lost (the hot potato is notdropped).

Entanglement is explicitly dropped with a specific key, which must berepresented within a locally cell-agent measured time window. Theentanglement is re-enabled if itis within this mutually agreed periodfacilitated by the cell agent(s).

Low Power Entanglement packets can also be carried by periodictransmission of Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) frames.

Links have entanglement IDs. This ID is completely independent of anycell ID, but may be derived from a secure key generation source in thehardware, preferably in the MC itself. The key (as is the case inconventional symmetric key schemes, such as Needham-Schroeder) may bederived from unique information on either side of the link, and combinedin some function which is unique for that session. ENTL may use ahierarchy of session levels (based on subtime durations measured ateither end of the link) to maintain protection against man in the middleattacks.

Entanglement packets may be represented in asynchronous (transition)logic, or any general XB/YB control code as follows:

|↑>□ (Up Transition) (forwards in Gray code) [Consistent with previous2×2 Matrix]

and

|↓>□ (Down Transition) (backwards in Gray code) [Consistent withprevious 2×2 Matrix].

FIG. 8B shows two cooperating cells 700 a, 700 b forming an entangledlink 710. Each of the two cells (encapsulated computer nodes) 700 a, 700b have a structure similar to that described above with reference toFIG. 7 and each include cell hardware 702, cell software 704, with sixNetwork Interface Controllers (NICs) 706, and a physical connector 708.A cable 720 connecting the two cells 700 a, 700 b provides a networkbetween the two cells 700 a, 700 b (these are intended to be point topoint connections, but the present invention also works in modified formin a conventional network using switches and routers.) Each cells 700 a,700 b has a primary agent 704 responsible for controlling the NICs 706and routing date from one MC to another. An entanglement is createdthrough the novel heartbeat mechanism described in this invention below.

This shows the intended conceptual and physical simplicity of theentangled link 710. There are preferably two separate channels in anycommunication link, which prefers full-duplex implementations (such asthose found in 10 Gbit Ethernet—IEEE 10GBASE-X, and other communicationlinks). The separate channels are however, not independent, they areassociated in such a way that both channels travel the same path andexperience the same environmental and other hazards. If true redundancyof paths is required, then multiple communication links are used. Inprinciple, an entangled link can be created by a single or odd number ofinverter (NOT) gates where the outputs and inputs are looped backthrough the other cell. This creates a classic digital oscillator, whichwill have a frequency inversely proportional to the distance between theconnected cells.

FIG. 9A shows an example of an entangled model. In this example, thereare cells A, B, C, D and E. Each cell has limited valency, and each portfrom that cell can be unambiguously addressed by that cell. Becausedirect (bipartite) connections are physical connections and thereforestable over long periods of time, port addressing yields communicationwith a near neighbor (N2N), which preserves relationships, and in turn,can be used to maintain trust, and eliminate ambiguity about who a cellis connected to (in terms of what physical cell, OR what logicalapplication is running on that cell). Additionally there are fourentangled links: one between cell A and B, one between cell B and C, onebetween cell B and D and one between cell B and cell E. Entanglementrequires an identifier for the link, an identifier for each of the twoconnected cells, and a port ID for each of the connected cells(a,b,c,d,e,f). For example, an entangled link 710 between cell B and Cwould require an identifier for the link: potentially composed from theID for cell B, Port c of cell B, the ID for cell C and a port ID forcell C.

FIG. 9B shows a valency limited entanglement from an LOV perspective.For example, FIG. 9B illustrates a hub and spoke entanglement fromself-cell.

FIG. 9C is a block diagram of a valency limited entanglement from a GEVperspective. For example, FIG. 9C shows a model for a resiliency web.

FIG. 10A shows a beacon mechanism, which is driven from within eachcomputer node 802 by a periodic process such as a timer. Beacons serveto allow cells 700 to discover and rendezvous with each other, but aresuppressed when entanglement takes over. The beacon is activated by anexternal watchdog timer process checking on the entanglement to see ifpackets have been received in the previous beacon period. For example,it may be implemented as a conventional watchdog timer In the ENTT layershown in FIGS. 13A & 13B. Although it runs continually, advertisementpackets are suppressed from being sent on the link when entanglementsare active. Each (internal) timeout event of the beacon watchdog invokesa routine which checks to see if ENTL has received a packet during theprevious period. If it has, the periodic process goes to sleep. If ithas not, the advertisement packet is sent out on the link but this timeaddressed to the previously selected partner cell with a “lostentanglement” status. This continues indefinitely until the partnerresponds, and the entanglement is restarted. Beacons are initial TICK'sthat initiate an entanglement, the response to which is a TOCK from alistening cell at the end of the link. The authentication procedure (notdescribed in this specification) then takes place to verify sibling cellcredentials and map them to capabilities that can be granted higherlayers up the stack.

Beacons are unacknowledged heartbeats, sent asynchronously with lowperiodicity (say once/second) to: (a) provide an advertisement andrendezvous mechanism for new cells, and (b) a restart mechanism whenentanglements are broken. The restart mechanism can then check the lastprocessor clock time for the last heartbeat going out, increment thepacket loss counter, and restart the entanglement.

Beacons may also be used to percolate sheaf instrumentation and securitytype information, two potential uses of this mechanism is are describedby Bennett and others are related directly to the Earthcore MetaDataTensor (MDT), which depends on the ENTL mechanism for correct operation.

FIG. 10B shows single packet entanglement mechanism. This “hot potato”'algorithm is the simplest possible symmetric algorithm. Imagine a uniquetoken: one side has it, then the other. As soon as a packet with thetoken comes in, it is immediately sent back. The hot potato being sentfrom the machine on the right to the machine on the left. On receipt ofthe packet, the machine on the left immediately sends the packet back tothe machine on the right. A “dual hot-potato” method is the preferredembodiment. This continues indefinitely, and may allow us to measure thelatency of each packet as precisely as possible (through comparison ofthe processor Time Stamp Counter (TSC) on the local machine—which stampsthe outgoing packet, and compares its receipt against the current TSC.The blue packet represents the ENTL beat, the white boxes represent“unused” packets on the link (for longer links). It is exquisitelysensitive to losing a single packet, but either entanglement can restartthe other extremely quickly and log the lost packet. This system wouldrequire 2 lost packets to stall both entanglements, requiring the beaconmechanism to then restart it from higher up in the stack.

FIG. 10C shows a pipelined mechanism, where the pipe is filled withsequentially numbered entanglement packets, and the returning packetsallow each side of the link to measure both latency (in TSC ticks), andbandwidth (how many sequentially numbered packets it takes to fill thepipe). This is used in cases where the length of the cable andintermediate switches and routers in the communication link represents asignificant transmission delay, then the single packet may bearbitrarily extended to multiple back to back packets which may live “onthe wire” concurrently; with greater numbers of packets being in transitas the spatial distance and number of intervening devices increases.Indeed, this is a way of measuring the actual latency of the currenttransmission path, and if historical information on minimum and averagelatencies are recorded on both sides of the link, would afford a methodof detecting changes to the latency in response to, for example, queuingdelays. A Time Stamp Counter (TSC), a facility found on most modernprocessor architectures, is the software that runs as close as possibleto the Network Interface Card (MC), either in the interrupt serviceroutine, or even the firmware of the MC itself. The higherlayer—ENtangled TRees (ENTR) running in the device driver runs the restof the mechanism responsible for transactions, authentication andbeacons. The system can be controlled by control blocks in a securememory page accessible only to a secure hypervisor. This may beimplemented by sending out a series (1 . . . N) packets each with asequence number, and “discovering” how many TICKs it takes to fill thepipe (an initial latency measurement is be made with one packet first,to allow a calculated estimate of the number). The first TOCK receivedby the initiator indicates the pipe is full. The initiator records thesequence number of the last sent TICK, and subtracts the two. This isthe number of packets it takes to fill the pipe. This mechanism willallow us to measure the bandwidth of a dedicated pipe.

FIG. 11A shows a hybrid information and entanglement (entanglementpackets in blue) mechanism, sharing the same link. Entanglement packetsare generally short (as short as possible), and can be piggybacked ondata packets. Data packets are generally long and take up most of thebandwidth.

FIG. 11B shows a transaction mechanism. FIG. 11B shows the case wherethe Transaction Engine is involved, and is sending actual data packets(in red above). This will be interspersed with TICK and TOCK packets(Blue), with the remaining slots (white) unused. Note that theentanglement packets may be periodic (every so many data packets), thedata come in random bursts, and the empty packets are what are leftover.

FIG. 11C shows a burst entanglement and burst transaction methodmechanism. FIG. 11C shows how multiple entanglements can be burst inorder to provide redundancy to protect against individual packet loss,or to piggyback different information types.

FIG. 11D shows the case where the Transaction Engine is involved, and issending actual data packets (in red above). This will be interspersedwith TICK and TOCK packets (Blue), with the remaining slots (white)unused or used for data packets. Note that the entanglement packets areperiodic (every so many packets), the data come in random bursts, andthe empty packets are what are left over.

FIGS. 12A-12C show basic types of entanglement. They are all bipartite(having two corresponding parts, one for each party).

Entangled links (ENTL) are bipartite computational entities comprised ofpacket exchanges between the most fundamental (simplest, least possible)mechanism at each end of a physical channel. Each half maintainsentanglement only with its identifiable and authenticated other half,laying a new foundation upon which to build secure, ultra-reliable,transaction-oriented logical channels. Entangled Links are“individuals”, computationally independent and functionally orthogonalto all other processes (agents, processes, etc.) in the cells(encapsulated units of compute, storage and network function) theyconnect.

Entangled links are used to maintain and instrument a livenessrelationship between two machines in an Ethernet or IP Network. Theyprovide rich characterization of local observer view (LOV) link statebased on a model of liveness where progress is held eternally in stasisuntil either side chooses to move their joint state forward byinitiating or completing a transfer of information. Unlike state changein cells, which is monotonic and irreversible, state change in entangledlinks is successive and reversible; providing a basis for guaranteedinformation transfer. Note that the concept of irreversible time isexplicitly absent from this formalism.

As shown in FIG. 12A, Entangled links are singular computationalentities of first order. The white spot in the middle of the linkbetween the hexagonal cells. They are governed by a single shared statemachine, half of which resides in the cells on either side. Onlyincoming packets may cause transitions from one state to the next inthis constrained state machine. Before the state transition is complete,it sends out a packet to its partner on the other side of the link. Theother link is a mirror process, doing exactly the same, in a completelysymmetric manner. The system represents a self-running oscillator, whosefrequency relates to the spatial distance of the link and the hardwaredelays in the NICs (or MACs).

Symmetry is not perfect because one side must initiate the entanglement.We call this the TICK beat. The other half responds with a TOCK beat.Every TICK is symmetric and idempotent with every other TICK, every TOCKis symmetric and idempotent with every TOCK. However, if a packet islost, then either side of the link may re-establish the entanglement, inwhich case it becomes the TICK and the other side responds with a TOCK.In the case where both sides collide sending TICK packets, they willback off and restart with a simple arbitration mechanism, such as theagent with the lowest ID (GUID compare).

FIG. 12A shows the basic entanglement which is just a singleentanglement channel between the two cells. We depict the linkentanglement with the circle on the links, which indicates a combinedexecution entity made up of the whole path. FIG. 12B shows that themultiple entanglement may have two or more channels between the twocells, each being a separate entanglement which may stall, but which anyof the other entanglements may notice, and attempt to restart. Thisprovides a capability of extremely fast restart of the entanglementwithout having to wait for the periodic beacon, which runs at a slowerrate. FIG. 12C shows a secure entanglement (shown by shading), whichsimply means that once an entanglement has begun, and authentication hastaken place, that the entanglement will only restart with itsauthenticated other half, and will create an error or securitynotification if other devices attempt to intervene.

Links may be in the state of transmitting, or receiving, or entangled.The first two states transfer actual information, the third state is thespecial state specified herein as entanglement, where no actualinformation is being transferred, but an idempotent token isindefinitely exchanged between the two computers in such a way that nooperating system, protocol stack or application processes need to beactivated.

FIGS. 13A and 13B are a block diagram of an example entanglementsoftware implementation architecture. In this example, the entanglementengine is in pipelined mode where each entanglement packet issequentially numbered and the current round trip latency is immediatelyobvious to both sides of the link by comparing the current incomingpacket with the last outgoing packet. This also provides a means tomeasure the bandwidth capacity of the link, which may be used eithercontinuously or in burst mode to reduce energy consumption.

The heart of ENTL is the Entanglement Engine is at the bottom of FIG. 1. This is the hot-potato function, implemented as close as possible tothe MC (in the MC firmware, or the interrupt service routine). The codeat this level is explicitly interaction code: it performs its functionin as few lines as possible, there are no semaphores, no locks, noqueuing, nothing whatsoever that can be blocked (as it should be forinterrupt service routines). The Entanglement Engine gets its directiondeclaratively, though the ECB (Entanglement Control Block). Thisincludes declarations such as start, stop, and minimalist forms of faultinjection (such as miss 1 packet, send corrupted packet, and counteroverflow).

The “Layer” that the Entanglement Engine runs is as close as possible tothe Hardware, it is not required to be device independent. Indeed, itmay need to be device dependent in order to maximally exploit theavailable hardware. However, the amount of code required here is small,and therefore the effort to port this to other devices will be minimal.

The next “Layer” up is where device independence should be takenseriously. The Three engines in this layer are all governed by theTransaction Engine. For the time being, we will ignore theAuthentication Engine, and Forwarding Engine. They are not necessary forthe first level implementation of this project.

The Transaction Engine is invoked only when the upper layers (Therouting Engine) request actual data OR TRANSACTIONS to be sent on thelink. Note that the RoutingEngine is the pathway to the network fromboth other links, and internal agents which wish to use the service.

The Transaction Engine receives all packets that are not ENTL packets.It examines them for either entanglement restart, transaction control,Authentication triggers. Anything it does not recognize it routes to theForwarding Engine (If the forwarding engine does not recognize them, itsends them to the default instrumentation & Control Engine on this cellfor logging as an error. An alternative mode will be implemented whichsimply discards all packets that are either not from the identifiedsibling cell or not containing a valid packet type within the setdescribed in this document. However, even in that mode, there will be anincrementing “bad packet” counter for this entanglement epoch.

All components installed in the ENTL and ENTT layer are not directlycallable from any application. However, they can be declarativelydirected through their control blocks: (Authentication Control Block(ACB), Beacon Control Block (BCB), Entanglement Control Block (ECB),Forwarding Control Block (FCB), and Transaction Control Block (TCB).

FIG. 14A shows an example set of data structures on either side of thelink, with the information each side shares with the other, theconsensus value for the local link identifier (a shared secret), and thepacket loss and latency registers used to measure the performance andquality of the link while it is in operation. Note that the structure issymmetric, with the exception of the counter-symmetric nature of thepublic/private keys. The data shown is generated by the engines in theENTL and ENTT layers, but is available for reading by anyinstrumentation & control function at higher layers, providing the MMUenforces read-only operations. The algorithmic constraint of 64-bitreads or writes will enable consistency to be maintained, and that allreaders are non-perturbative with respect to the ENTL function(s)implemented at the lowest layers.

FIG. 14B shows a diagram of an example of Protocol Phases for AtomicInformation Transfer. Application Stack vs. Atomic Packet: A very simpleexample of the value of emulated quantum processes (the no-cloningtheorem) is that packets on a network are necessarily part of a largerCQ/EQ (Conserved/Equivalent Quantities) system. In a conventionalapplication and database configuration, there are many layers of codethat the transaction process must go through, including the operatingsystem multithreading and storage protocol layers. However, a primarygoal of a transaction is atomicity. If we identify and calculate thecomponent chain of reliability through these components (generally acartesian product of the failure rate of each component) then amotivation exists to find an easier way to achieve atomicity that doesnot need to go through this component chain. Conventional transactions(in, for example, databases) continue to increase their complexity andunreliability of the conventional mode of transactions.

In this invention, the minimum necessary components to achieve atomicinformation transfer are minimized and isolated. If this is done in thenetwork, all the unreliability contributions of the application, kernel,protocol layers and device drivers become irrelevant, and a simpler,more straightforward reliability model of atomic information transfercan be achieved. As shown in FIG. 14B, Idle packets are replaced byEntangled Link Packets. Prepare phase is replaced by entangledtransaction token (converted entangled link packet). Commit phase obeysENTangled Transaction (ENTT) protocol. Acknowledge is replaced byconversion of entangled transaction token back into entangled linkprotocol. Indefinite number of idle packets conforms to Jim Gray prooffor two-phase commit. Rollback is achieved by replacing the entangledtransaction token back into prepare token. The System acts as anarbitration mechanism between the bipartite pair, deciding on the causaldirection of information change.

A Network Facility for Atomic Information Transfer. The presentinvention aims to provide a fundamental new capability applicable to anyreliable, transactional data store, using the mechanisms described inEntangled Links and Entangled Transactions, but extended for use in aconventional network where the entangled links occur between differentboxes in a distributed switch environment. In one example, classic fattree network, where all switching is carried out in one of two layers:the leafs or the spines is used. Leafs are used traditionally to connectto computers and the outside world (for example, the internet). Spinesare used to connect the leaves together to form a scalable highbandwidth and low latency “flat” network core. The intention is toprovide cheap (in the sense of requiring very little CPU cycles, storageand network bandwidth), reliable (in the sense of robust in the face ofboth expected and unexpected perturbations), and secure (in the sense ofnot being “eavesdroppable” by unintended witnesses) “Atomic InformationTransfer” in the network layer that anyone can use for any purposewhatsoever, including as a transaction service to applications, adistributed counting service to distributed object storage, and, most ofall, a predictable, controllable facility for managing the recovery ofsystems and datacenters from disasters. This invention has the potentialto enable faster and more reliable transactions than conventional (TwoPhase Commit, or Paxos) transactions.

FIG. 14C shows a symmetric 2-bit entanglement pattern, illustrating theexpected 4 states, and with the transform being a grey code from onestate to the next (one bit changes at a time per receive and transmitevent). This is the minimal (classical computing) signaling method tomaintain reversibility. Each transition (receipt of a packet,transmission of a packet) causes the state machine on each side toincrement its code.

The present invention is for one or more low-level primitives, EntangledLinks, in a distributed computer system to express a new concept of“entangled links”, which have the property that they never fail in aninconsistent state, and to do so in a mode that is “successively”reversible. The Entangled Links are implemented by reversible statemachines and an associated protocol between as will be described in moredetail below. Immediate practical benefit is provided by reducing thewindow of vulnerability for potential inconsistency in informationtransfer by a beneficial factor. For example, the concept of synchronouscommunication in the channels of process calculii presents a sendingagent with the prospect that it must wait for a receiving agent toacknowledge before it can proceed with the next step in its computation.Entanglements enable us to merge the synchronous/asynchronousdistinction in an interesting way, using a try primitive which isequivalent to synchronous if the entanglement is TRUE, because theprobability of the message being sent immediately is extremely highbecause it is far more reliable to send information to an immediateneighbor (which intrinsically becomes a proxy to ensure furtherdistribution of the information), than it is to send it “directly” tosome destination which must pass through a longer software and hardwarecomponent chain, such as that represented by a WAN where none of theintervening devices contain stable storage. If the entanglement isFALSE, it becomes equivalent to an asynchronous channel by depositingthe message in an output buffer and returning anyway, knowing that theunderlying mechanism will act as a proxy (responsible for a promise) andendeavor to deliver the message by any means possible, even after theagent terminates or crashes. However, the agent may now use the catchprimitive to detect this case of a (presumably temporarily) brokenentanglement. If the catch was on a channel that happened to be a WAN,rather than a LAN or direct connection, this distinction would allow theprogram to make different decisions, to delay its own progress, orinitiate alternative actions to achieve the intended objective (such assaving a backup copy in an alternate failure domain) based on thecharacterization of the entanglement which may be very different foreach case, such as the WAN or LAN versions described above.

The availability of entanglement as a property of the link means thatthe agent can proceed much faster, and does not have to wait for thetimeout to know that the acknowledgement may not be coming. Theentanglement mechanism affords the agent a means to delegateresponsibility in a more controlled manner to the underlying mechanisms,and reducing the window of vulnerability to inconsistency by asignificant degree.

If the entanglement is neither TRUE or FALSE, we can now explicitlyexpose the excluded middle (an important concept in constructivemathematics), as a practical mechanism that can be tested for andresponded to by the agent. For example, two additional states:UNINITIALIZED, and UNKNOWN may be provided as states which can bereported to the program(s) or agents which desire to use the link.

The primitive communication element of our system is an “entangled link”between nodes that enables logically nearest neighbor computers to beconnected in a reliable manner. This approach to resilient connectionsensures that breaks in communication between nodes do not have anunexpected negative impact upon the communicating applications thatdepend upon them, and that the nature of the break (duration, severity,etc.) can be communicated to the application and operating systemprocesses that utilize them.

Another advantage of this protocol method is to eliminate the “prepare”phase of the conventional two-phase commit protocol, the Paxos or othertransaction/consensus protocols: The entangled link is effectively (andperpetually) in the “prepared” phase already. This has the potential tosubstantially increase the performance, or the rate of transactionsbetween computers.

A. Link Characterization

Entanglements are defined as closely coupled bipartite relationships(across links) which characterize (among other things) their local viewof: availability (current state and historical average), latency(including statistical measures of variance), and secure sessions(bounded by reliable events to establish and tear down). Benefits ofentanglements include:

1. Computational Independence (of the Guest Virtual Machines, operatingsystems, application, agent, process, or protocol stack). A couplingmechanism between connected computers such that communicating agents canmake the fastest possible clarifying assumptions about the status of thecommunication channel using available information without requiring theuse of timeouts or resets, being overly simplistic (abstracting awaylatency and unreliably), or being overly complex (requiring theapplication or agent to handle each type of error that may occur).

2. Maintaining secure sessions requires something below the level ofprocesses man application or operating system that cannot be infiltratedwithout detection. A very fast response and general awareness of latencyand link integrity make man-in-the-middle attacks easier to detect andharder to implement.

3. Entangled Links provide a verifiable, provable, and atomic elementthat maybe composed into higher level structures that supportsystem-wide predicates to assist with distributed computations andenable shared awareness of exogenous events (so that other resources canbe dispatched to identify and respond to them based on correlatedpatterns of events and historical recognition of prior behaviors).

4. Security. It is extraordinarily difficult to fake an entanglementwhen interactions are between the MC hardware or firmware, or theInterrupt Service Routines of two directly connected computers. Temporalsignatures cannot be hidden by attackers; latency is a quantity that canbe measured and tracked, and if necessary, triangulated by cooperatingagents to verify the geographic (spatial) relationships among three ormore parties. Although we prefer not to use entanglements across legacyprotocols or applications, the mechanisms for latency measurement can beused to triangulate the IP latency signature of nodes and assist withthe identification of attack nodes in system intrusion and DistributedDenial of Service (DDoS) scenarios.

5. Virtual Machines (VM): higher level kernel routines, and especiallyapplication software is far removed (computationally) from individualheartbeat packets arriving and being responded to on a networkinterface. It will be effectively impossible to fake entanglement fromwithin a guest virtual machine (VM). Simply suspending the VM (a commonattack vector) will immediately break the entanglement to the VM, andtrigger re-authentication procedures for sessions using, for example,the Needham-Schroeder symmetric key cryptographic protocol.

6. VM Migration, as a failover or load-balancing technique invirtualized infrastructures, will break the entanglement and requirere-authentication not only of the links in the source location, but anynew links in the neighborhood of the VM's new destination.

B. Beacons

Beacons are unacknowledged heartbeats, sent asynchronously with lowperiodicity (say once/second) to: (a) provide an advertisement andrendezvous mechanism for new cells, and (b) a restart mechanism whenentanglements are broken. The restart mechanism can then check the lastprocessor clock time for the last heartbeat going out, increment thepacket loss counter, and restart the entanglement.

Beacons may also be used to percolate sheaf instrumentation and securitytype information, two potential uses of this mechanism is are describedby Bennett and others are related directly to the Earthcore MetaDataTensor (MDT), which depends on the ENTL mechanism for correct operation.

C. Unused Packet Slots

An important refinement of the mechanism is for the Link Entanglementpackets to use only unused protocol slots, i.e., those slots which wouldotherwise be wasted and lost forever when not used by the normalfunctional transfer of information. The mechanism can be designed toadaptively step aside when network buffers are waiting on the outputside. Acting like the null process in an operating system, which issometimes used non-intrusively, for calculating such things as π to anarbitrary precision, using CPU resources that would otherwise be wasted.

Because we have complete control of the Dynamic Locality Secure Protocol(dlsp), we can merge the packet format for active data with the packetformat for inactive heartbeat (entanglement) data, using a bit in theheader.

This provides a large number of derivative benefits, such as percolationof locally observable data, to remote cells which subscribed to thestream, or for computational spiders which wish to perform collectivefunctions such as distributed counting, or initiation of latency (ping)signature measurements to suspect IP addresses in the CAL to supporttriangulation of potential attackers.

D. Implementations

Entangled links may be implemented as a heartbeat mechanism, eitherdirectly in the hardware or firmware of the communication interface, orin the interrupt service routine of a computer and its I/O subsystem,i.e., at the lowest level of programmatic control in the system, belowany application or operating system function which may be subject tofailures, starvation, deadlock or other unanticipated delays. Thepresent invention achieves the highest possible intimacy of the linkbetween two systems, and to make the computational entities on bothsides of, and which define the link, computationally independent of theother programs running on either computer. In this way, the combinationof mechanisms in the communication ports (of the two computers) are tiedtogether as a single computational entity in the link, which isautonomous and independent of the normal computational functionsexpressed in the operating system or applications within the rest of thecomputer. For example, recursively enumerable computations expressed bya calculus expression.

The present invention raises the importance of this bipartite link to beof first order, equal in importance to the processes executing in thenodes themselves, instead of being perceived, considered and managed asan adjunct to those processes. This means that if either or bothprocesses in the connected computers were to crash, stall, becomedeadlocked, or even terminated voluntarily, that the link continues toremain “live” as a separate “bipartite” computational entity, until itis explicitly tom down by, for example, physically disconnecting thenetwork cable.

Entanglement Links are symmetric. There is no client-server or otherasymmetric assumption where one side of the link is superior to theother. This enables valid independent actions to be initiated fromeither side of the connection when information is transferred. Wheninformation is not being transferred, the link is simply a bidirectionalback and forth transfer of a token: tick tock, like a metronome, with nodistinguishing characteristic from one tick or tock to the next. This“timeless” relationship, with the exchange of a single atomic packet,constitutes what we call an “entangled” state. The link has no sense of“change”, and continues indefinitely, until either the token exchangefails, or processes in other parts of the operating system orapplications in either computer wish to transfer information.

There is no limit to the rate of transfer of the packets. In principle,the communication interface on either side of the link my immediatelyturn around the packet and send the token back. This affords twospecific benefits. The first is that it minimizes the latency of havingto wait for the next handshake before information can be sent. Thesecond is that it provides the smallest possible window of opportunityfor inconsistency for the processes running in the operating system orapplication in the computers on either side of the link. As far as theimplementation is concerned, this immediate sending back and forth ofthe token can be carried out in the interrupt service routine directly,without having to call some kernel routine with some specified delay. Ifthe token exchange is implemented in the hardware or firmware of thecommunication port itself, this would lower the interrupt rate into thecomputers on each side.

Entangled Links may be implemented using any link protocol. However, thepreferred embodiment is to use raw Ethernet packets, perhaps with amodified “ethertype” field to very quickly allow the MC firmware or theDriver Interrupt service routine packet inspection code to identify anddispatch the packet before it enters the regular buffer channels of thedriver leading to the protocol stack. Another preferred embodiment is touse DCE (Data Center Ethernet) as the transport mechanism, to exploitits multi-channel and lossless packet characteristics in combinationwith the Priority Queue Engine (PQE) described elsewhere.

E. Multicore Mapping

A significant embodiment of the invention is the potential to map thelink entanglement and transaction mechanisms statically to one of thecores in a multi-core processor. It has already been proven that theperformance and interrupt overhead of a routing protocol can besignificantly reduced by the technique of mapping network flows toprocessor cores. However, a useful partitioning and optimization of theentangled link mechanism and token exchange mechanism is a non-obviousinvention over and above the mapping of network flows to the process.Indeed, it would be highly efficacious to map the object trees toindependent cores in the processor.

Where the length of the cable and intermediate switches and routers inthe communication link represents a transmission latency, then thesingle packet may be arbitrarily extended to multiple packets which maylive “on the wire” concurrently, with greater numbers of packets beingin transit as the spatial distance and number of intervening devicesincreases. Indeed, this is a way of measuring the actual latency of thecurrent transmission path, and if historical information on minimum andaverage latencies are recorded on both sides of the link, would afford amethod of detecting changes to the latency in response to, for example,queuing delays.

In cases where the link is private between two computers, the onlyconstraints to how fast the packets are turned around is the digitallogic or firmware (if implemented in hardware) or the interrupt rate (ifimplemented in software), and any excess power dissipation on the wiredue to the transitions of the changing information in the packets. Eventhen, the packet design could be such that unnecessary transitions areeliminated, optimizing for minimum power where that may be desirable.

In cases where the link is shared between more than two nodes, theentanglement is still bipartite between two nodes, and the communicationis considered independent. However, heartbeat tokens need to take intoaccount both bandwidth sharing and queuing delays (which can also becaptured by any method, or in the method described above).

Entangled links may be bipartite (between only two computationalentities) or in some embodiments multipartite (between three or morecomputational entities).

One intended use of this mechanism is to leverage its properties throughlanguage primitives (or library) as a foundation for creating andmanaging large-scale, distributed systems within a programmatic context.Such that these primitives may be recruited to construct relationshipswhich maintain certain predicates as true in the face of perturbationsand exogenous events which signify failure of underlying systems ortopology. If a program crashes and the system reboots or another systemcomes online, the mechanism ensures that the predicate remains true, orbecomes true again, without the need for the programs to be restartedand to reinitialize or rebuild them. This becomes important, forexample, in systems with an indefinitely large number of stored objects,each of which may have an indefinite number of replicas which mustmaintain their structural connection to the “set” of sibling replicas,so that their structure and relationships can be maintained in spite offailures, disasters or attacks to the system. Higher level functions maybe of any type, including create, replicate, evaporate (delete localreplicas), update (update or append all replicas with some commutativeoperation), or any set of operations on the replicas specified by theapplication.

Another intended use: classical computer programming techniques alsopersist only the data (files/databases), or snapshots of programexecution (virtual machine images). The mechanism described in thisinvention provides a foundation so that the relationships between theseentities can be persisted in the form of virtual self-healing graphsmanaged by cooperating agents. The challenge such systems face, which isaddressed by this invention, is maintaining integrity and structure ofthese relationships through failure and reconfiguration of the links andsystem components as the program executes. If this could be done simplyand reliably (from the perspective of a programmer or systemadministrator), this would provide a rich characterization ofconnectedness, where previously TRUE and FALSE where the only possiblevalues for the property of “connected” in conventional link-statemanagement. This would allow finer graduations and more diverseresponses by a program, beyond a simple timeout and a specified numberof retries.

Other practical issues addressed by ENTL (shared by existingwell-established methods) include subsuming: detecting if a link is upor down (electrical link state), is it going through a switch or arouter or neither? Does a particular resource exist? When to trigger alink re-authentication? etc. Advanced features include StructuralTemporal Integrity (STI), mitigating the disruptive effects of timeoutsand eliminating their unnecessary logging mechanisms, bipartitetransactions (transactional exchanges between nodes without atransaction manager) described in ENTT, and sheaf type information toenable distributed monitoring and collective management of autonomouscells across cliques, colonies and complexes.

An important purpose of ENTL is to make the communication channeltractable to formal methods, to prove its correctness, and duringoperation, to provide a rich characterization of a link, well beyondthat typically provided in simple heartbeat mechanisms.

The present invention in this and other implementations may optionallyinclude one or more of the following features or achieve theseadvantages. For example, features may include:

A packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism between pairs of computers (nodes)where both sides together maintain an active link as a single abstractcomputational entity (the entangled link) independent of all othercomputational entities in the nodes on each end of the link.

An packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism that realizes or characterizes asa “encapsulated, independent computational entity” the chain of elementsbetween the I/O subsystem on one computer and the I/O subsystem onanother in order to achieve temporal intimacy (active knowledge of eachother's presence over a communication medium as that medium exhibitstransient or permanent failures).

A bipartite heartbeat mechanism for maintaining temporal integrity in adistributed computer system over a communication medium through packetexchanges to maintain reliable link state independently of all operatingsystem and application processes.

A heart-beating method that uses a unique, idempotent, and reversibletoken exchange which presents no visible indication of progress until acommunication of information needs to occur between the computers, andwhich maintains the potential for bounded (or unbounded) reversibility.

An entangled link in combination with a protocol where in the “change”with respect to the link one or more unique tokens will be conserved(i.e., each token will be on one end of the link or the other but notboth and not neither)

(0<N_(link tokens)≤N_(max tokens)).

An Singular Computational entity which encapsulates the devices alongthe path, cables, and Network Interface Controller (MC), and thecontroller handler on both sides of the link into a single abstractentity which has at least: connected and disconnected, and from each endof the link, the following properties may be available: (a) a latencyvector which maintains a running average of recently observed latencies;(b) an estimation of average bandwidth over recent transfers; and (c) ameasurement of peak bandwidth seen at some time during the period thelink was up.

An entangled link between two computers where new links are firstauthenticated, and old links are archived (persisted) for auditability.

An entangled link where the token is uniquely identifiable only to eachpair of participating nodes, and which may be used to maintain a securesession, so long as entanglement is maintained. The uniquelyidentifiable token being persisted when the entanglement breaks, and afast re-authentication takes place if the heartbeat occurs within someacceptable (locally visible) timeframe or conditions. Symmetric in nodetype (eliminates all distinctions between masters and slaves), symmetricin protocol: message and acknowledgement, etc., uniquely identifiedindependently of the computers on either side.

A set of links having a packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism betweenpairs of computers (nodes) where both sides together maintain an activelink as a single abstract computational entity (the entangled link)independent of all other computational entities in the nodes on each endof the link and wherein in any combination is described by a Graph G=(V,E) or Tree T=(V¹, E¹) where (V¹ V) (E¹E).

A packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism between pairs of computers (nodes)where both sides together maintain an active link as a single abstractcomputational entity (the entangled link) independent of all othercomputational entities in the nodes on each end of the link forcharacterizing the quality and responsiveness of a link between computersystems, including current and historical measurements on latency,characterization of packet loss both currently and over the life of thelink.

A mechanism in described in the above examples, which may be used tobound the setup and teardown of secure link protocols, where heartbeatintegrity monitoring may be used to detect changes in latency, packetloss, electrical link state or other detectable changes, and is able tocommunicate this as a complex data structure to application andoperating system processes to provide a richer characterization of linkquality other than TRUE or FALSE.

A mechanism as described above where the heartbeat is implemented ineither hardware (or firmware) in the network interface, or in software,in the interrupt service routine, so as to be as “intimate” as possiblein its temporal relationship with its neighbor.

A mechanism as described above whereby the heartbeat mechanism is mappedto a dedicated core on a multi-core computer.

A mechanism as described above, where the tokens are maintained to becryptographically unique and/or with a large incrementing serial numberwhich steps monotonically forward or backward in its count asinformation is transferred, or untransferred respectively.

A Virtual Tap that enables measurement and logging of the link stateinformation, which may be “subscribed to” by an administrative processfor the purposes of selective instrumentation of the system. Theprinciple is to capture the headers, throw away the payload, andtransmit the header information (with routing) to a central place foranalysis.

Transmission of information in “spare” slots by the above mechanismsusing for example:

-   -   Passive Observer (passive observer—instrumentation data is        percolated (transmitted) on a space available basis. Note that        this is related to active data path (audit).    -   Active Traffic: Instrumentation data is batched up and sent on a        space (bandwidth) available basis, or when buffers get full.    -   Priority Traffic: information is always transmitted when these        types of events occur.

Instrumentation that can make measurements and diagnostic checks inline,and, through the state-file mechanism, select a separate tree fortransmission of the instrumentation data so as perturb the primary pathas little as possible when debugging.

Percolation (from sheaf theory)—ability to diffuse informationthroughout the system based on spare (unused) data slots,non-intrusively.

Separation of autonomic behavior or activity from auditability.“Separation of concerns” enables independent audit of systems (forexample for security audits).

A heartbeat mechanism in entangled link mechanism comprising a heartbeatwith a unique token.

An entangled link: a single, encapsulated and independent computationalentity: comprised of the chain of elements between the I/O subsystem onone computer and the I/O subsystem on another computer in order toachieve temporal intimacy (active knowledge of each others presence overa communication medium) as that medium experiences transient orpermanent failures.

A packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism having a bipartite mechanism formaintaining temporal integrity of the link in a distributed computersystem over a communication medium through packet exchanges is used tomaintain reliable link state, independent of all computer operatingsystem and application processes.

A packet-exchange heartbeat mechanism, wherein a unique, idempotent, andreversible token is exchanged until information transmission needs tooccur between the linked computers, and which maintains the potentialfor bounded (or unbounded) “reversibility”.

A Beacon mechanism used to support setting up and maintaining theEntanglement. Beacons are normally unacknowledged heartbeats. They areused for initial rendezvous between cells on the network, which begins anew entanglement, and for detecting an entanglement is broken andrestarting it.

A combination of computer and interconnect providing bipartitecommunication between to NIC's, along a single communication path.

The Entangled Link provides an indivisible information transfer from onecomputer (the self) to another computer (the other). These are the selfstates. Each computer also maintains a data structure describing, fromits perspective, its awareness of the combined state of the twocomputers (the entangled pair).

Each computer sends its information starting from a state of“unentangled”. The information sent reflects the data structure whichreflects its knowledge of the “joint” state of the link.

This data structure reflects a 2×2 matrix, with elements [a, b; c, d],which may be flattened to a vector {a,b,c,d} for the purposes ofexpressing and transforming this data structure.

The above data structure contained in a single (for example) 64-bitword, which may be operated upon indivisibly by a processor accessingits registers or writing into memory.

The tables above show examples of the kind of transmissions that theself may send to the other through the process of packet reception andtransformation. The full table would include the combination of all theallowed symbols in the alphabet (similar to the ruleset in a CellularAutomata).

This vector is sent over the link from the self computer to the other.Upon receipt of the vector, the receiver will perform a transformationon the input vector to create an output vector, which it now treats asits own (self) and sends to the other.

This loop of transmissions between the self and the other is a symmetricoperation which remains stable until one side or the other changes thetransformation. There are several starting states, and several(well-known) transformations comprising a 2×2 matrix operator (forexample, the Pauli matrices which includes the identity, bit flip, phaseflip, and bit and phase flip operators).

Typically a link will monitor a ‘private state’ which is a vectorprovided by its local agent. It will carry out a transformation on anyinput.

Logical Entanglement is a method of creating entangled links betweencells through a chain of segments in a conventional network or fabricwhere each hop is an independent and separate entangled link (i.e.,tokens are conserved in each link separately, with single, multiple orany other type of entanglement described herein). For a chain of Nlinks, there are therefore N independently maintained entanglementtokens (one in each segment). The latency of the entanglement isaccumulated as the sum of the instrumented latency measurements on eachlink. This allows local knowledge of not only latency of the lastpacket, but minimums, maximums and running averages, which are all ofvalue in understanding, for example, what bandwidth loading and effectsof queuing are in a communication link. This may be implemented insoftware, hardware, quantum devices or any combination thereof. Logicalentanglement is under direct (opcode) control of the Graph VirtualMachine (GVM).

Virtual Entanglement is a method of establishing entangled links througha chain of segments in a conventional network or fabric, where theentire chain is treated as a single segment. This may be done through,for example, the conservation of a single token through the entirechain. I.e. Tokens are immediately forwarded at each switch node withoutreflecting the hot potato packet back immediately. Entanglement packetstraverse the whole network and are reflected by the computers (or NIC's)at each end. The latency of the entanglement is measured by the endentities and maintained as a parameter for the whole chain. This may beimplemented in software, hardware, quantum devices or any combinationthereof. Virtual entanglement is under direct (opcode) control of theGraph Virtual Machine (GVM).

Network Fabric Support for Serialization Foci is a hybrid mixture ofLogical Entanglement and Virtual Entanglement, where the selectedserialization foci (identified by some hop-count or latency average,failure domain independence, security, reliability or other measure ofappropriateness) maintains separate Virtual Entangled Links with eachcomputer, through a series of network segments. This serialization focimay reside in any of the switch nodes in the network, although in atypical spine and leaf architecture, the spine may be the logical choicebecause of its centrality. This may be implemented in software,hardware, quantum devices or any combination thereof. Serialization fociare generated and managed under direct (opcode) control of the GraphVirtual Machine (GVM).

FIG. 15A shows an example of a chained entanglement. FIG. 15A showssegment by segment entangled links, or, router simply “repeats”entanglement packets as is without transformation. Multi-segment(chained) entanglement may also occur with “piggybacked” entanglementcodes, where local segment continues with regular entanglement protocol,with router transforming and reflecting packet as usual, but alsoforwarding an additional packet, which is piggybacked on theentanglement packet in the next segment, and so on, until thepiggybacked entanglement code reaches its destination and isterminated/reflected back along the path to the source.

FIG. 15B shows cells connecting through a general interconnectionnetwork. Hot potato protocol must now share resources (switches/routers)and will suffer non-scalability similar to the heartbeats, unless thenetwork provides added primitives to maintain presence (such as segmentby segment link entanglement).

FIG. 15C shows an example of link entanglement through an externalswitching network. In this link entanglement through an externalswitching network, the switch/routers are capable of the entangled linkfunction. This provides “Logical Entanglement” that software could usewith the same API abstraction when requesting entangled transactions orsome other application function. Logical entanglement may also beadapted to situations where the communication paths and cells may comeand go (and come back again) over long periods of time (years).

FIGS. 16A-16I show various types of entangled trees. The entangled treesmay span part or all of a clique. Cells connected by links (blackconnections between cells) may be dormant. When trees are built alllinks on the tree move into the entangled state (shown by overlaid redlines between cell agents). Entangled transactions may be communicatedwith higher order entangled transaction packets (piggybacked onentanglement packet or otherwise) from one point on the tree to another.These trees provide a locally repairable, acyclic and deadlock-freetopology, and a substrate where coherency threatening operations areguaranteed to collide.

The Earth Computing model addresses “entangled trees” with it's NALunderlay where sets of subscribed agents on cells may view some or allof the operations intended to modify its data structures (such as theMetaData Tensor (MDT), described elsewhere in this application). Thelogical link (or set of physical links between endpoints) may beconsidered a degenerate case of a simple tree. Earth computingincorporates an implicit Local-Observer-View (LOV) agent to each celland to each physical link in the system. This “link agent” is completelyautonomous (able to act alone without instructions from some otherentity, including the cells it is connected to) yet it can make“promises” to these (cell) agents it is connected to, as well asparticipate as an autonomous entangled link in a network, forming ahigher layer structures we call “entangled trees”.

Being able to treat an entire tree as an entangled and addressableentity presents significant benefits to the management of datacenterequipment. These benefits include: (1) self-healing without having toalert a human being to invoke repair mechanisms (2) self-checking, bymutual verification with other agents it is connected to (3) eliminatingthe need for conventional “monitoring and instrumentation” logs and (4)ability to offer higher-level promises that provide system levelfunctionality over and above the transport of packets, such asStructural Temporal Integrity (STI) described herein. These benefitstranslate directly into improved performance, security and scalability,and into lowered costs, especially those associated with administrativecomplexity. This application describes those functions which may deriveparticular benefit from being implemented in hardware, for example, ineither the Network Interface Controller (MC), switch or router. TheEarth Computing underlay eliminates the notion of a server and the needto statically bind objects to a server. This set of functions which maybenefit from hardware (or some combination of hardware and firmware)implementation is referred to a “Network Assisted EntanglementFunctions”.

More specifically, FIG. 16A is an example of individual independententanglement links that are independent of one another in the sameinfrastructure or plex. FIG. 16B is a block diagram of an example of achained entanglement links. FIG. 16C is a block diagram of an example ofskip entanglement links where intermediate cells will forward packets onthe tree, but not participate in operations applied to data associatedwith that tree. FIGS. 16D and 16E are a block diagrams an example treesof entanglement links. FIG. 16F is a diagram of an example of asnowflake of entanglement links. FIG. 16G is a diagram of an example ofmultiple overlaid trees routed on a center cell. FIG. 16H is a diagramof an example of multiple overlaid trees routed on a right cell. Itshould be appreciated that in a clique of n cells, there may be n fullspanning trees, each considered to be coexisting but functionallyindependent of each other (only two of which are shown on FIGS. 16G and16H. FIG. 16I is a diagram of an example of multiple independent treesof entanglement links, with each tree spanning only a small(non-overlapping) portion of the cells in the clique.

Entangled Trees may span part or all of a clique. Cells connected bylinks (black connections between cells) may be dormant. When trees arebuilt all links on the tree move into the entangled state (shown byoverlaid red lines between cell agents). Entangled transactions may becommunicated with higher order entangled transaction packets(piggybacked on entanglement packet or otherwise) from one point on thetree to another. The tree provides a locally repairable, acyclic anddeadlock-free topology.

Tree Based Consensus Methods

Pease, Shostak and Lamport showed that the problem of reaching agreementin the presence of byzantine faults is solvable for, p≥3f+1 where f isthe number of faulty processors and p the total number of processors.They also showed that if faulty processors can refuse to pass oninformation but cannot falsely relay information, the problem issolvable for arbitrary p≥f≥0. The weaker assumption can be achieved inpractice by using cryptographic methods.

While they proved that consensus can be solved in synchronousdistributed systems despite Byzantine failures of less than one third ofthe processes, it cannot be solved deterministically in asynchronoussystems with even a single unexpected process failure. Solutions to thisproblem require extensions to the model, such as failure detectors(timeouts), and randomized approaches. The ENTL invention eliminates theneed for failure detectors (timeouts), and presents a new perspective onthe notion of liveness in distributed computing systems.

There are at least three specific benefits of this invention insupporting distributed computations:

Resources (and topology) are unknown before the computation begins, andmay vary throughout the computation as new nodes join and other nodesleave, either because they have failed or the link to them has failed.See tree building on extensible infrastructure in a previous section.

Each node is limited in the number of direct relationships it may havewith immediate neighbors (a Degree Constrained Graph or DCG).

Relationships with nearest neighbors is maintained by underlyingmechanisms which characterize the temporal intimacy (latency),reliability (packet loss), and capacity (bandwidth), etc. ENTL is a muchsimpler and more reliable method of maintaining presence(liveness)between computer systems.

Agreement

The detection of process failures is a crucial problem system designershave to cope with in order to build fault-tolerant distributedplatforms. Unfortunately, it is impossible (in conventional switchednetworks) to distinguish with certainty a crashed process from a veryslow process in a purely asynchronous distributed system. The history ofthis problem in the consensus literature has become quite complex. Thisinvention addresses this problem by identifying two distinct entities ina distributed system: cells (which accommodate processes) and links(channels for repeatable and reversible communication). In a somewhatunusual step, we make the links a first class citizen and require thatthey be treated as a single, encapsulated, autonomous entity, which canbe named, manipulated, assigned properties, and reasoned aboutmathematically. Links have an identity (defined independently, and bythe cell identities on both sides), individuality (unique and distinctin the network), and are able to make promises to the cell agents theydiscover and interact with.

We do not ignore the practical difficulty of making a bipartite link(comprising computational sub-elements in two computers, and the cablesand electrical signaling in between). Indeed, we recognize thefundamental property of the link as having various degrees of temporalintimacy, instead of a simple notion of TRUE or FALSE in a propertycalled connected. Other aspects of the link state include temporalintimacy {Connected, Not connected, Reestablishing connection,Uninitialized} as well as promise states {Kept, Not-Kept, Repaired,Uninitialized}.

Instead of having two cell agents on different computers address eachother directly, we require them to interface to the link only (thechannel between them). In this way, we can establish and manipulate thevarious properties and nature of the link quite differently to the waywe manage and manipulate the various properties of the cell agents(processes), using, for example, λ-calculus, π-calculus or CSP. Thelimitation of λ-calculus, is that it is limited to a Turing machine,reflected in the concept of remote procedure calls (which unfortunatelyabstract away the latency and failure model of a distributedcomputation). The limitation of π-calculus is that the notion of achannel is ambiguous, incorporating any communication path betweenendpoints. The limitation of CSP is that its notion of a channelincludes any arbitrary observer of the state change (multipleendpoints), which fails to recognize that entangled links arenecessarily bipartite (between only two entities—where equivalent orconserved quantities must be exchanged).

Faulty processors can refuse to pass on information but cannot falselyrelay information. In this invention, we use the tree with a skip listto enable cells on the same branch of a tree to communicate with eachother privately, through one or more untrusted intermediate cells.

The problem addressed by the original Pease, Shostak and Lamport paperon consensus concerns a set of isolated processors, some unknown subsetof which may be faulty, that communicate only by means of two-partymessages. Each nonfaulty processor has a private value of informationthat must be communicated to each nonfaulty processor. Nonfaultyprocessors always communicate honestly, whereas faulty processors maylie. The problem is to devise an algorithm in which processorscommunicate their own values and relay values received from others thatallows each nonfaulty processor to infer information (a value) for eachother processor. The value inferred for a nonfaulty processor must bethat processor's private value, and the value inferred for a faulty onemust be consistent with the corresponding value inferred by each othernonfaulty processor.

Model of Time

In the model described in this invention, observable time is change:which passes only by a relative, persistent and reversible transfer ofinformation between elements:

By change, we mean a potentially reversible transfer of information(happen).

By relative, we mean from the specific locality of the observation (theself-cell).

By persistent, we mean, it did not change back (unhappen) after bringobserved.

By observable, we mean that until information is irreversiblytransferred to a third party, as far as other observers observing theobserver are concerned, it has not yet occurred.

The cells & links model of this invention provides for only two kinds oftemporal awareness: the temporal awareness inside the cells, which wetypically associate with a process and a sequential, monotonicallyincreasing clock; and the temporal awareness of the links (which weelevate to a first class citizen in this invention), and associate withit the transfer of information. A key distinction between our model andthat typically assumed in the computer science literature, is that bothof these sub-models of time can literally go forwards and backwardsindefinitely by the reversible transfer of information along the links,until this information is irreversibly transferred to other observer(s)along the links, or erased in the cells (dissipating energy).

An important aspect of our model of time, is that it allows thepossibility of a somewhat arbitrarily long recursive transfer ofinformation from one observer to another, and as long as it is in achain or tree (acyclic graph), then information will not be lost orerased, but then all this progress can also be undone, all the way backto some arbitrary point in the past, and any observer outside that chainor graph will be none the wiser, as if whatever happened in the graphnever existed at all. This is the foundational issue for dataconsistency, which we address in this invention.

Information can also be circulated throughout the graph, without beinglost or erased, and observers tapping into this cycle of information canrelay that information to other observers bringing ever larger number ofedges and vertices into the entanglement. This is the basis forentangled trees.

Implications

Consensus is the process of achieving robust agreements in a pre-definedgroup of processes, taking account of all available inputs, and in thepresence of arbitrary failures and byzantine behavior of the processmembers. This invention exploits the presence management and reversibleaspects of the entangled links (for a connected state more reliable thanthat afforded by heartbeats and timeouts), and the informationconservation properties bypasses some of the limitations of conventionalconsensus algorithms.

FIG. 17A shows the LOV behavior on the link when entanglement is inprocess(the subtime view).

FIG. 17B is a sequence diagram for an example token transfer forentanglement between of cells including witness cells. FIG. 17B is a“hypothetical” GEV perspective of the packets which foliate theentanglement when entangled transactions take place. It is important torealize that, by definition, this kind of global observability showsonly the partial order taken by the paths with an assumption of asmooth, monotonic and irreversible background of time. I.e. any localreversals of information flow that were reversed will not show up in thefinal record. Furthermore, the more witnesses that an entangledtransaction has, the less likely it will be to reverse to a prior state.Witnesses therefore create persistence and immutability of the staterecord.

Enablement Example

TABLE 7 Example Entangled Link Mode Tick Tock (two state/phase sequence)A AB ABB ABBB ABBBB ABBBBB ABBBBBB ABBBBBBB Initial B 2^(nd) 3^(rd)4^(th) 5^(th) 6^(th) 7^(th) 8^(th) Packet Transform Packet Packet PacketPacket Packet Packet Packet 0 1 0 −1 1 0 0 −1 1 0 0 −1 1 0 0 −1 1 0 1 01 0 0 −1 1 0 0 −1 1 0 0 −1 1 0 0 −1 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 0 −1 0 1 0 −1 0 1 0 −1 0 10 −1 0 1 0 −1

TABLE 8 Second Example Entangled Link Mode Tick Tock (four state/phasesequence) A AB ABB ABBB ABBBB ABBBBB ABBBBBB ABBBBBBB Initial B 2^(nd)3^(rd) 4^(th) 5^(th) 6^(th) 7^(th) 8^(th) Packet Transform Packet PacketPacket Packet Packet Packet Packet 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 −1 −1 0 0 1 1 0 0 −1 −10 −1 0 1 0 0 −1 −1 0 0 1 1 0 0 −1 −1 0 0 1 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 0 1 0 −1 0 −1 0 −10 −1 0 −1 0 −1 0 −1 0 −1Tables (7 and 8) above show examples of an embodiment with bits/packetson the wire expressing a 2×2 matrix. Matrix A (the initial receivedpacket) and Matrix B (the transform—in the receiver on each end of thelink). The output (matrix multiply) AB, ABB, ABBB etc. show the seriesof tick tock packet exchanges of the shared data structure in the timereversibility mode of the entangled link. In this example, the trace ofA is 0, while its determinant is −1. This is one way to represent astable entanglement session. When implemented in software, or hardwarein the MC, it represents a simulation of quantum entanglement. When itis implemented in its full expression, in a completely asynchronous(separate hardware/software timing domain in the NIC's and cables in thelink) as a hot potato packet in the link, it more faithfully emulatesquantum entanglement. When implemented on optical connections, withpolarized single photon emission and detection, actual quantumentanglement may be used as the entangled link reversibility primitive.Note that the determinant of the tick tock matrix packet in this examplealternates between +1 and −1, indicating that the link is nowrepresenting one bit of information. I.e. a shared quantum state. Notethat this tick tock sequence was initiated by the matrix packet A, whichhas a determinant of −1, i.e. negative information (information it gaveup to be shared within the link in its entangled state). Also note thatthe main diagonal on the initial packet A and the first transformationmatrix B both have a trace of 0, implying that no Global observer oneither side of the link has visibility into the packet. Finally, if weadd Det(A)+Det(B), we should arrive at a net zero of information(indicating a combination of positive, and negative information withinthe link), but not visible from the outside (GEV).

TABLE 9 Third Example Entangled Link Mode Tick Tock (four state/phasesequence) A AB ABB ABBB ABBBB ABBBBB ABBBBBB ABBBBBBB Initial B 2^(nd)3^(rd) 4^(th) 5^(th) 6^(th) 7^(th) 8^(th) Packet Transform Packet PacketPacket Packet Packet Packet Packet 0 i −i 0 0 −1 0 i 0 1 0 −i 0 −1 0 i 01 −i 0 0 i −1 0 −i 0 1 0 i 0 −1 0 −i 0 1 0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 0 1 0 1 0 −1 0 1 0−1 0 1 0 −1 0 1 0 −1

TABLE 10 Forth Example Entangled Link Mode Tick Tock (four state/phasesequence) A AB ABB ABBB ABBBB ABBBBB ABBBBBB ABBBBBBB Initial B 2^(nd)3^(rd) 4^(th) 5^(th) 6^(th) 7^(th) 8^(th) Packet Transform Packet PacketPacket Packet Packet Packet Packet i 0 −i 0 1 0 −i 0 −1 0 i 0 1 0 −i 0−1 0 0 −i 0 i 0 1 0 i 0 −1 0 −i 0 1 0 i 0 −1 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 Tr0 Det0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 −21 0 1 2 1 0 1 −2 1

Tables 9 and 10 shows examples, with a four state repeating sequence,using an example where the symbol i=√−1 (the imaginary unit) appears inentries in both the input packet matrix A, and the transform matrix B.The traces of A and B are 0 (−i+i), and both determinants are 1.

It should be appreciated that there are many different initial startingconditions (matrix A) and transforms on each end of the link (matrix B)which will result in useful repeating (or non-repeating) sequences ofticks and tocks such as the 2-phase sequence shown in Table 7, the4-phase sequence in Table 8 and Table 9. Entanglement may be interruptedby one side or the other changing the transform matrix applied to theincoming packet, for example to initiate some other reversible linkfunction, such as Atomic Information Transfer (AIT) or some otherapplication desired function. The transforms on both sides of the linkmay also be asymmetric as they will be at least during transitions, inwhich case all combinations of symbols, initial packets (A), symmetricpacket transform matrices (matrix B) and asymmetric (B₁ and B₁)implementations are claimed in this invention.

It should also be appreciated that the 2-phase, 4-phase sequences havedifferent utility within the entangled link protocol set. We havealready identified the 2-phase as useful for simple (timeless)entanglement, and the 4-phase sequence as the minimum necessary tosupport reversible transactions.

Alternative descriptions of the 2-phase, 4-phase sequences can be seenin FIGS. 21A-F, which show a more conventional computer science statemachine description. 6-phase and higher sequences may be used foradditional application-specific functions. Non-repeating sequences arealso claimed for any combination of the input packet (A), firsttransform (B₁), and second transform (B₂). i.e. the cellular automataresulting from these combinations may be arbitrarily long and complex(rich).

From these descriptions, it should be clear that a main distinction ofentangled links (ENTL) is that they are a single symmetric statemachine, not a classical replicated state machine (RSM), where one sidemust be the master and the other is the slave. ENTL contains thephysical connecting media as well as the MC and software, in anindependent timing domain. If the packet is lost, the state machinestops. This makes Entangled Links exquisitely sensitive to packet loss(which is the intent).

From these descriptions, it should be clear that a main distinction ofentangled links (ENTL) is that they are a single symmetric statemachine, not a classical replicated state machine (RSM), where one sidemust be the master and the other is the slave. ENTL contains thephysical connecting media as well as the MC and software, in anindependent timing domain. If the packet is lost, the state machinestops. This makes Entangled Links exquisitely sensitive to packet loss(which is the intent).

A use of the invention is where the set of entangled links are assembledby tree building algorithms into a substrate (graph topology of linksand cells), which may be used from the set of trees spanning every cellin the clique, such that any one tree may use its acyclic topology todynamically determine the ordering of events by packets spanning theset, or some subset (graph cover) of the tree rooted at any chosen cell.Because each link is individually reversible, in a very simple andhighly reliable manner, the AIT tokens within this link may be used forseveral higher level functions, especially the recovery of the link, oran entire tree (or subset thereof), after perturbations (failures,disasters, attacks). As a recoverable entity (e.g. going around thefailed link and repairing the graph with a new acyclic structure), thisaffords a mechanism that does not require cross network heartbeats todetect a vague notion of ‘network partition’. Instead, this recoverableentity is a locally reachable and repairable, and not subject to thecommon mode failures of many node/link communications as experienced byconventional server/network architectures.

The invention works best when all the links in computer system have thecapability of being entangled. One way to do this would be to have eachcomputer have a valency (number of connection ports) equal to the numberof neighbors it can directly connect to without going through switchesor routers. Another way is to simply assume that switches and routersare also cells, with the same low-level entanglement capabilities(mechanisms and software) contained in the cells.

The ultimate solution would be to define a cell to contain the agentsand mechanisms described above with each port able to create andmaintain entangled links with their neighbors, as in FIG. 7B. Thisequivalence can be seen by recognizing that switches/routers andcomputers, are all ‘cells’. Note that one may then consider aswitch/router to be a wimpy server, and a server to be a wimpyswitch/router.

An important benefit of this arrangement (eliminating the distinctionbetween computers and switches/routers) would be to ensure that packetsare not dropped arbitrarily, as they are in current networking systems,and that token preservation is promoted to a first class principle inthe presence of perturbations (failures, disasters, attacks).

The most important benefit of this generalized arrangement of cells andlinks is to provide the foundation on top of which to create a networkautomaton, which is similar to a cellular automaton, but withcommunication going over arbitrary long links and a potentially evolvingtopology.

For use in the preferred embodiment: more confined sets of claims, wherecells (hardware) are directly connected by links (not through switchesor routers), and can benefit the most from these environments.

FIG. 18A is a block diagram of an example token transfers with no order.

FIG. 18B is a block diagram of an example token transfers with order inthe entangled chain.

FIG. 18C is a block diagram of an example token transfers with aserialization focus.

Hardware Support for Network Assisted Transactions

A transaction is a transformation of state which has the properties ofatomicity (all or nothing), consistency (a correct transformation),indivisibility (serializability) and durability (effects survivefailures). The transaction concept is key to the structuring of datamanagement applications. The concept has applicability to programmingsystems in general, and not just databases. However, full ACID-complianttransactions are often considered “too expensive” for anything but themost mission critical aspects of IT infrastructures. If transactionswere “cheap” i.e., used very few CPU resources, they could be used muchmore pervasively throughout an IT infrastructure to provide a reliablefoundation on which data can be more safely modified and more reliablyretained.

Network assisted transactions use Entangled Links (ENTL) to maintainconstant preparedness for “atomic information transfer”. Entanglement(NUL) packets are replaced by an“Atomic Information Transfer” (AIT)packet, when a program in the upper layers in the Earth Computingarchitecture wishes to use the transaction service as a replacement foror supplement to the normal two-phase commit or paxos protocols used toprovide ACID transactions in the application layer.

There are two essential properties of atomic information transfer whichmay benefit from a combination of hardware or firmware assistance:

Maintenance of Atomicity: I.e., complete delivery or completenon-delivery of packets between two entities. The simplicity of theentanglement and AIT packets enables a simple mechanism in the hardwareto provide guarantees for this atomicity. For example, in the case oftom packets (when connections are broken) and corrupted packets (in thecase of interference). This mechanism is especially important in thecase where real quantum devices are used for entanglement to replace the“emulated” version described here and in prior disclosures.

Conservation of Tokens: In entanglement, a single semantic-free token ismaintained in the system (i.e., only one token exists at a time, whichoscillates from traveling in one direction and then the other). Inmultiple entanglement, two or more tokens may exist in the bipartiterelationship, and any of the tokens may be used as a trigger to test forliveness of other entanglements. This provides for rapid recovery in thecase of lost or tom packets in an individual bipartite entanglement.

Buffering of Tokens or Transaction Data: One of the simplest ways tosupport durability of transactions is to (as fast as possible) sharecritical data in an independent failure domain. In traditional systems,logs are used because they can write sequentially to a device. However,in an Earth Computing (EC) environment, it may be orders of magnitudefaster to share the data on both sides of a link, until the upper layersof the computing system or application has had chance to invoke its owndurability measures, which may mean, for example, writing to aNon-Volatile memory of SSD. Networks and NIC's are much faster thanwaiting for the traffic to percolate up the virtualization layers,protocol stacks and cache hierarchy of an executing application.

Direct Support for Serialization Foci. Serializing transactions in themain memory of multiple computers (including a transaction manager) canbe profoundly slower than exchanging packets directly between NIC's.

All of these above properties are sufficiently simple in their operationin the MC that they could be effectively maintained by the hardware.Many different implementations may be possible in standard logic withthe need only for a simple state machine in the case of “normal”failures that can be automatically restored. Only in the case of unusualfailures may it be necessary to hand over to the MC firmware to processmore sophisticated state machines, and only in the case of extremefailures may it be necessary to invoke software to handle a failure thatis not covered by the hardware or firmware capabilities for automaticrecovery.

Another important embodiment of hardware support in the MC is apotentially completely asynchronous implementation, e.g., an event basedasynchronous logic which is initiated by an incoming packet, andquiesced by completion of the outgoing packet. Such an implementationwould enable the maximum performance and “transaction readiness”benefits of the entanglement method by maintaining its temporalindependence of the digital clocks in the CPU's on both sides of thelink. A completely asynchronous implementation allows the system tobecome a “free running” oscillator: free of all unnecessarysynchronization boundaries, and their associated time delays on bothends. The link agent will therefore be truly an “independentcomputational entity”, autonomous and independent of other softwareentities in the computers on each end, forming its own timing domain;executing the link agent completely independent of the cell agents(which may also be autonomous and in their separate and independenttiming domains on both sides of the link).

Hardware Support for Reliable Replication

Replication (copying and migration of data structures across a link) isa function carried out on behalf of the Data Asset Layer (DAL), thelayer above the Network Asset Layer. Reliable replication may build onthe atomic information transfer capability (the ability to maintainidempotent semantics in the face of perturbations) as described above.Replication may be supported by the priority queue engine (PQE) asdescribed below, and shown in FIG. 23 . Because it is desirable totransfer entire data structures (or some simply defined subset) in aconsistent way, hardware mechanisms may be useful to ensure the reliabletransfer of integer multiples of those segments in order to supportlarger data structures.

This is similar in concept to the notion of an offload engine (a popularmethod of improving the performance of networks) by using hardwareassist techniques (and indeed, many of the implementation techniquesused there may be used here), but with one important distinction: themaintenance of “entangled clones” of data structures on both sides of alink; i.e., this is not simply a “copy” from some “master” on one sideof the link to a “slave” on the other side of the link. Mechanisms onboth sides (up to and including the IOMMU on each side of the link) maybe used to detect and trigger synchronization updates to the oppositeside. The entanglement mechanism preserves the “serialization” foci toalternately offer one side or the other a chance to orderly update fromone clone of the data structure or the other and to detect “collisions”where the data structure may be attempted to be updated from both sidesat the same time (collision detection is guaranteed by the acyclicnature of entangled trees).

An important distinction exists between what is described above(entangled data structures) and RDMA (remote DMA). Remote DMA is amaster-slave arrangement, with one side being statically assigned a roleof master and the other side statically assigned the role of slave. Theconcept in RDMA is that one side is “writing into the memory” of theother side. The entangled data structures approach in this replicationtechnique allows the symmetric synchronization of data from one side toanother, with alternating turns being offered by the current directionof the entanglement token.

The Priority Queue Engine (PQE) description below describes various datasizes in binary multiples which may be supported by the hardwareassisted replication function (see FIG. 23 ). The smallest size (<4K) istypically used for the entanglement protocol and may be used also tocarry additional information regarding the integrity of the entangledtree, to maintain Structural Temporal Integrity (STI) as describedpreviously (note that the minimum size of an entanglement packet is thesmallest number of bits to encapsulate the atomic token for the qubit)the rest of the packet may be used, for example, to piggybackinstrumentation or obfuscate the packet cryptographically. The nextsmallest size (8K) is designed to fit within a standard Ethernet Jumbopacket; corresponding with what we anticipate being the largestreasonable atomic data structure supportable by the atomic informationtransfer mechanism. It is intended that the replication mechanism beused to implement the transfer of n contiguous (in physical or virtualmemory) atomic segments of 8K. This is because hardware can normallysupport the detection and resending of torn packets up to this size andthat the receiver can detect and discard torn packets even if the linkis temporarily or permanently broken.

Hardware Support for Distributed Counting for CQ/EQ Operations

By its simple nature, the entanglement packets are singular entities.The software and hardware mechanisms described above, are designed toconserve this singular quantity in each entanglement, or a set ofindependent singular quantities in multiple entanglement links. However,values expressing other than unity may be carried in each AIT packet:one field in the packet carries the value, another field carries theunits. For example, a quantity of $1B (or any other representation ofcurrency) may be carried in the AIT packet. While atomicity may bemaintained by the hardware, with appropriate formal methods verifyingcorrectness (i.e., consistency with the CQ/EQ constraint) each packetmay carry any integer multiple of unity as a value. We do not anticipatethat continuous (i.e. non-discrete) entities will be carried by thismechanism.

While the CQ/EQ constraint may be the relevant conservation operation atthe link level, system-wide conservation is monitored and verified atthe Computation Asset Layer (CAL) by the MetaData Tensor (MDT) whichuses the mathematical techniques of Tensor Networks to manage totalsystem conservation.

Clearly, counting of packets is a trivial use case for this mechanismand simple ratios of packets to Time Stamp Counter (TSC) values provideperformance and latency instrumentation.

A further embodiment of this mechanism is the support of arithmeticfunctions on a named value. For example, a new value is to be added orsubtracted from a current value in a cell. This may be used, forexample, to keep count of the number of active (or otherwise) replicason a tree; an important redundancy management mechanism in the DataAsset Layer (DAL). An extension of this embodiment is to provide notonly the name of a value to be counted along with the new value that isto be “added” but to provide a “currently expected” value; this servesas an important end to end error check mechanism. A secure version ofthis may be implemented cryptographically using both the link keys andthe cell keys for basic encryption and a data key for the owner of thedata.

A further embodiment of this mechanism is the support of DistributedAlgebraic Queries. Queries such as: {><, ≥, ≤, =, ≠, . . . } may beapplied to any named data value (scalar, vector, etc.).

A further embodiment of this mechanism may be used to support queries onany named data object, or set, a full set of linear algebra operationsmay be applied to a data structure defined as a tensor of any arbitraryrank (see MDT disclosure for further details). Tensor contraction isalso an important mechanism for adaptive resource management in alllayers of the Earth Computing (EC) architecture.

Hardware Support for Serialization Foci

An important mechanism to support both legacy software and futureserialization architectures is the support of serialization foci. A“serialization focus” is a single point in time and space which defines(and persists) the ordering of events. Event ordering is a criticalrequirement for data consistency and any uncertainty or vagueness in itsdefinition, or undisciplined observance or modification by multipleentities will threaten the consistency of data. However, while it ispossible to define event ordering on say a single master-multiple slavearchitecture, it is not possible to define it (in the same way) on amultiple master environment without guaranteeing that operators arecommutative.

The theory of relativity demonstrates that “simultaneity” is relative(i.e., different for different observers) in a distributed system. So asimplistic notion of data coherency (up-to-date-ness) is in conflictwith notions of consistency (correct, usable without conflict).

In Earth Computing, a serialization focus may be singular (e.g., amaster is statically assigned the serialization focus; therefore allupdates must go through the master) or plural, i.e., any node may updatean object, but different tradeoffs may be made for coherency; allowing,for example, stale data to be meaningful, but still correct (readable asa consistent entity, not corrupted). Alternatively, it may be maintaineddeclaratively as “coherent” (up to date as far as possible within theconstraints of the speed of light) but controllably inconsistent(different data objects contain the same data, but potentially in adifferent order). The latter may be achieved in a vector data structure(e.g. file system) by using “append-only” protocols. An example of a usecase is error logs, where the logs do not have to be in identical orderon different systems, but ultimately contain the same information.

Serialization foci are a generalization of this principle: that two ormore serialization points may be defined in a single distributed system,but there is a consistent (commutative) way to update them. In theory,databases have this potential if they are sharded and each shard is on adifferent node and ACID properties are maintained within each shard. Theserialization foci concept and method does not care how it is used, itonly provides “promises” regarding its capabilities and expectedspace/time tradeoffs. An example would be “eventual consistency” whichis a belated update mechanism provided under best-effort conditions.There are many other tradeoffs allowed under this mechanism. Weanticipate they will be compatible with many current and future(currently unspecified) use cases.

Hardware support for serialization foci build on the notions of hardwaresupport for entanglement and atomic information transfer. The inventionis as follows: use the transaction token as “permission to write” to anobject. It is similar to a lock, but with the “writing” being contingenton presence of the serialization token on that cell. The integrity andreliability of the atomic mechanism is defined by the hardware assistedmechanisms described above. A further alternative incorporates themechanisms of “lock-free” or “wait-free” serialization methods, butusing the entanglement/token as a pass/fail through the data structure.Such methods may also be used in conjunction with the transactionalmemory instruction(s) available on modern processors to eliminate thedeleterious effects of locks and thread blocking in conventionalmultithreaded systems.

Hardware Support for Mutual Attestation

An important issue in many “Software Defined” systems is that thefunctionality of the various mechanisms can much more easily besubverted or redirected for nefarious purposes when they are insoftware. We therefore highlight a specific aspect of the EC securityarchitecture for which it is critical that it is not software defined.Mutual attestation is the process where the entangled link mechanism(semi-agent) in the cells on both sides of the link either discover eachother for the first time, or rediscover each other after some physical(or logical) reconfiguration of the network. We have noted earlier thatsymmetric key protocols (such as the Needham-Schroeder protocol) shouldbe implemented in hardware. Using this in combination with thetechniques described in the disclosures referred to above, which use theessence of the Entangled Link mechanism, to ensure that both sides ofthe link are constrained by the laws of physics (in particular, thespeed of light). Instead of using the current program counter (plus orminus some address distance) to solve some cryptographic problem withina (neighbor specified) time bound as a validation technique, a preferredembodiment would be to use certified hardware to initially establishthese links, and to validate that neighbor cells are who they say theyare (a particularly important aspect of self-healing of networks).

The preferred embodiment is for initial rendezvous, re-rendezvous,late-historical rendezvous, in combination with entangled links, istherefore that they are implemented in the hardware of the MC, switch orrouter, and not in software.

Hardware Support for Failover and Load Balancing

Failover and load balancing are essentially the same logical function.Failover provides routing to a primary destination (or tree) and if anerror occurs on the primary destination then it fails over to asecondary destination (or tree). Load balancing (through algorithms suchas round robin or dynamic load sensing) routes packets to a set ofpossible destinations one at a time, either in some round robinsequence, randomly, or based on some feedback mechanism that is aware ofthe current load on each target cell. These functions are intrinsic tothe Earth Computing Underlay, specifiable by a simple algebraicexpression in the GVM (Graph Virtual Machine) language, however hardwaresupport in the switch or router would greatly improve the performanceand resolution sensitivity when load balancing is carried out by thenetwork fabric. In the Earth Computing Underlay (ECU) model, the valency(graph degree) of each node is parametrically constrained. This is toforce the system into a multi-hop behavior, where complex networkstructures emerge on top of (overlaid on) the entangled trees, and canbe used for self-organization of, for example, data (LFU-MRU chains,etc.). When failures occur, normally there will be a healing functionaround the cell, and a reconnecting of entangled trees. This functioncan be made much faster and automatic if carried out in hardware (ordedicated cores per port, as shown in FIG. 7B).

Entangled Transactions

Entangled Transactions (ENTT) are a mechanism to manage exchanged andconserved quantities (EQ/CQ), awareness of time, and recovery fromfailures in distributed computer systems. They extend the notion of anentangled link between two computers, to a network of computers, wherethe “temporal awareness” of each link can be used as an element (anarchitectural brick) which is composed into higher level transactionsamong an arbitrary number of machines (ENTT), over an arbitrary amountof time (SMPT). Entangled Transactions replace conventional locking,commit coordinators, and two-phase commit protocols which are currentlythe mainstay of the database and financial services, and e-commerceindustry.

Where transactions stall, they jeopardize the consistency of thedatabase. The longer the stall, the greater this hazard becomes. Thereare three main sources of transaction stalls:

-   -   Disk Stalls: are caused by the enormous disparity between CPU        speed (ns) and disk speed (ms). In conventional thinking, it        would appear to make no sense to allow the CPU to do nothing        during the interval while it is waiting for a disk. This is a        motivation for multi-threading, and because consistency        threatening operations can be carried out by different threads        on the same CPU, mechanisms for concurrency control were        introduced, including locks and latches over the data        structures.    -   Network Stalls: are intrinsic to the nature of networks, which        have highly variable latencies (with very long tails—all the way        out to infinity for some types of failures) as networks        partition and heal. Network stalls are antithetical to the        client-server and object-oriented programming paradigms, neither        of which account for failure models or latency, both of which        they abstract away (without justification) of conventional        network setups. Thus they inject a large uncertainty into the        reliability of transactions, because packets can be lost, and        they incur a large performance penalty because the overhead of        detecting such failures is especially costly in latency.    -   User Stalls: are caused by the client applications attempting to        do “higher level” transactions (i.e., several atomic actions at        once, in an overall transaction that must (eventually) be ACID,        OR two or more elements separated by a user delayed decision,        such as a multiple purchase choice on a website prior to a final        checkout procedure. For example, when a customer (user) on eBay        clicks “buy” she activates a DataBase transaction (perhaps via        PayPal) which remains in stasis until the customer comes back        after shopping and clicks on “go to shopping cart”. This may        also be referred to as a “long-lived” transaction.

It is straightforward to dispatch the issue of disk stalls from ourhazard portfolio, using either NVRAM (Battery or Software) or SSD's forconventional databases. More importantly, they are solved directly byre-architecting the database to be entirely memory resident.

The Entangled Links (ENTL) also enables us to straightforwardly dispatchthe issue of network stalls from our performance and reliability hazardinventory: this method enables us to minimize transaction uncertainty bylimiting the window of time where uncertainty can occur to the minimumtheoretically possible under currently understood laws of physics. TheENTL patent is necessary, but insufficient, to redefine the conventionalmechanism of transaction commit in database systems. The property thatwe use from ENTT is “atomic commit OR Entanglement”—that is—we eitherknow (on both sides of the transaction) that the transaction committedand is confirmed, OR, that the transaction was trapped “in stasis” someway through the protocol. i.e., one or both sides remains uncertain asto the status of the transaction.

While ENTL minimizes this uncertainty by the mechanism described in thatinvention, this invention exploits this uncertainty to enable“long-lived transactions” where this stasis lasts well beyond thenormally expected interval of compute failures and recoveries inclustered or distributed systems.

In particular, we enable long-lived transactions by conserving one ormore entanglement and transaction tokens in the computational structureof the system involved. This computational structure maintains“persistence” (as opposed to durability) of the transaction in stasis.Entangled transactions may last for seconds, hours, days, weeks oryears. The mathematical ordering of events in the structure definedenables this ordering to be maintained indefinitely.

Entangled transactions lend themselves very well to chains of events.

Conventional Entangled Transactions Transactions Time ModelGlobal-Eye-View (GEV) Local-Eye-View (LOV). The (The Commit Coordinatorparticipants in the observes both parties in transaction is purely thetransactions and bipartite (between pairs itself). of cells). ElementsThree-Party (transaction Two (transaction pair pair + commit only), plusan Entangled coordinator) Link between them. Failure Two Phase Commit(or Indefinitely Reversible Model consensus protocol such Links (boundedor as Paxos, Zookeeper unbounded). orRAFT) Implementa- Application LevelIn the Network. The atomic tion (Database) using operation is theabsolute linearizability. minim (one minimum size packet in eachdirection). Heartbeats Conventional Heartbeats Intrinsic to theprotocol. (periodic from some Unrelated to any separate managementserver) source of timing, either in the operating system or network.

There are a number of problems associated with the conventional GEVstyle of programming: 1) Dirty Read (returning data from uncommittedtransactions); 2) Deadlock; and 3) Livelock.

The “two generals” problem for which no fixed length protocol exists toguarantee a reliable solution in an environment where messages can getlost.

The two-phase commit protocol was designed to address this problem.

Locks and Latches: Locks are used to protect the data or resources fromthe simultaneous use of them by multiple sessions which might set themin inconsistent state. Locks are external mechanism, means user can alsoset locks on objects by using various oracle statements.

Latches are for the same purpose but works at internal level. Latchesare used to Protect and control access to internal data structures likevarious SGA buffers. They are handled and maintained by Oracle and wecan't access or set it and this is the main difference.

Entangled links address the problem of lost messages in at least twoways: First, by keeping a pair of computers in a “constant state ofpreparation” for atomic operations to occur. The smaller the interval oftime between receipt and transmission of entanglement packets, thesmaller will be the probability of a failure occurring in that interval,with the number of failures tending to zero as the interval tends tozero. Second, by directly connecting the computers (either by a privatecable or direct radio channel) we eliminate all unnecessary devices, andtheir failure hazards in the communication path. This raises thereliability of the link, and lowers the potential loss of packets inswitches and routers, which contribute to unreliability.

When considering hardware or other failure modes, one may calculate thenumber of failures within a certain interval using standard probabilitytheory. The smaller the interval of time in consideration, the smallerwill be the probability of a failure.

A. Entangled Transactions

Instead of treating concurrency control as a lock over a shared dataobject, entangled links emulate the physical world where possession ofthe object itself regulates the serializability of the object in space.In principle, a single bit can represent the “serialization foci”. Morebits allow the token to be uniquely identified, and signed as havingoccurred over that particular link with those two computers.

One can imagine that entangled links are constantly doing “null” atomicoperations within the link. When processes in the local computer areready to do real transactions, they simply replace the null token with areal token to carry out an atomic operation. As soon as the real atomicoperation is complete, the link returns to swapping the nullentanglement token.

Some of the issues solved with the entangled link protocol include:

-   -   Maximum possible reliability, eliminating the potential for lost        packets. Now, when packets are lost, there is a high probability        (within a datacenter) that something serious has happened, and        less confusion about where (in what device or cable in the path,        or whether it is the server at the other end or not).    -   Elimination of the commit coordinator. Now the only participants        in the protocol are the transacting entities. This eliminates        hazards due to the failure of the coordinator, as well as the        message cost for including the coordinator.    -   Transactions begin only when link entanglement is current, i.e.,        we have extremely recent evidence that the other party is alive,        and the communication path is active.    -   Full reversibility. Instead of a special abort and “rollback”        mechanism in two-phase commit, we now have a general purpose        reversible computing mechanism, bounded only by the extra memory        it takes to create a logically reversible system.    -   Link synchrony. Instead of having to have synchronous.

Entangled Transactions can be leveraged to support any kind oftransaction management in distributed systems. There is no more need for“Transaction middleware” as the fundamental mechanism for managingtransactions is now built into the network itself.

Atomic commits are essential for multi-step updates to data. This can beclearly shown in a simple example of a money transfer between twochecking accounts.

This example is complicated by a transaction to check the balance ofaccount Y during a transaction for transferring 100 dollars from accountX to Y. To start, first 100 dollars is removed from account X. Second,100 dollars is added to account Y. If the entire operation is notcompleted as one atomic commit, then several problems could occur. Ifthe system fails in the middle of the operation, after removing themoney from X and before adding into Y, then 100 dollars has justdisappeared. Another issue is if the balance of Y is checked before the100 dollars is added. The wrong balance for Y will be reported.

With atomic commits neither of these cases can happen, in the first caseof the system failure, the atomic commit would be rolled back and themoney returned to X. In the second case, the request of the balance of Ycannot occur until the atomic commit is fully completed.

Atomic commits in database systems fulfill two of the key properties ofACID, atomicity and consistency. Consistency is only achieved if eachchange in the atomic commit is consistent.

As shown in the example atomic commits are critical to multistepoperations in databases. Due to modem hardware design the physical diskon which the database resides true atomic commits cannot exist. Thesmallest area that can be written to on disk is known as a sector (anderrors, including Silent Data Corruption (SDC) can occur even on asingle sector). A single database entry may span several differentsectors. Only one sector can be written at a time. This writing limit iswhy true atomic commits are not possible. After the database entries inmemory have been modified they are queued up to be written to disk. Thismeans the same problems identified in the example have reoccurred. Anyalgorithmic solution to this problem will still encounter the TwoGenerals Problem. The two-phase commit protocol and three-phase commitprotocol attempt to solve this and some of the other problems associatedwith atomic commits.

The two-phase commit protocol requires a coordinator to maintain all theinformation needed to recover the original state of the database ifsomething goes wrong. As the name indicates there are two phases, votingand commit.

During the voting phase each node writes the changes in the atomiccommit to its own disk. The nodes then report their status to thecoordinator. If any node does not report to the coordinator or theirstatus message is lost the coordinator assumes the nodes write failed.Once all of the nodes have reported to the coordinator the second phasebegins.

During the commit phase the coordinator sends a commit message to eachof the nodes to record in their individual logs. Until this message isadded to a node's log, any changes made will be recorded as incomplete.If any of the nodes reported a failure the coordinator will instead senda rollback message. This will remove any changes the nodes have writtento disk.

The three-phase commit protocol seeks to remove the main problem withthe two phase commit protocol which occurs if a coordinator and anothernode fail at the same time during the commit phase neither can tell whataction should occur. To solve this problem a third phase is added to theprotocol. The prepare to commit phase occurs after the voting phase andbefore the commit phase.

In the voting phase, similar to the two-phase commit, the coordinatorrequests that each node is ready to commit. If any node fails thecoordinator will timeout while waiting for the failed node. If thishappens the coordinator sends an abort message to every node. The sameaction will be undertaken if any of the nodes return a failure message.

Upon receiving success messages from each node in the voting phase theprepare to commit phase begins. During this phase the coordinator sendsa prepare message to each node. Each node must acknowledge the preparemessage and reply. If any reply is missed or any node return that theyare not prepared then the coordinator sends an abort message. Any nodethat does not receive a prepare message before the timeout expiresaborts the commit.

After all nodes have replied to the prepare message then the commitphase begins. In this phase the coordinator sends a commit message toeach node. When each node receives this message it performs the actualcommit. If the commit message does not reach a node due to the messagebeing lost or the coordinator fails they will perform the commit if thetimeout expires.

If the coordinator fails upon recovery it will send a commit message toeach node.

B. CQ/EQ

A typical consistency constraint is that that the number of dollars in asystem (such as an economy) is constant, or at least the money supply iscarefully managed. However, one may need to temporarily violate theconsistency of the system state while modifying it. For example, inmoving money from one bank account to another, there may be an intervalof time where one account has been debited and the other not yetcredited. The notion of an account on a single machine is entirelyinconsistent with the idea of persistence, because total data loss canoccur with many different failure hazards, not only the physicaldestruction of the machine.

Entangled Transactions solve this problem by explicitly exposing theinconsistent state, and providing full reversibility in the operationswithin the entangled link itself (described in a separate patentapplication).

For classical transaction processing systems, in general, consistencyassertions cannot be enforced before the end of a transaction. Thispresupposes two assumptions:

-   1. That one can define a transaction to have definitively “ended”.-   2. That forward progress (liveness) can be assumed because “time    moves forward” irreversibly and at a constant pace (for an inertial    system).

There are specific issues with each of these assumptions. For example,many high level transactions do not have an explicit “end”. If acustomer wishes to return a product to a retail store, its transactionmay need to be reversed. Also, for a loan, the transactions remainsuspended in a legal agreement until such time that a loan is paid off.This can delay the notion of “completion” of the transaction for manyyears.

For our second assumption, time may not be reversible in conventionaltransaction processing systems. When a computer crashes, the typicalprocedure is to replay a log file into the database and return it to aconsistent state at a previous point in time. More generally, VirtualMachines may be suspended or their clocks set to some arbitrary time inthe past (or in the future).

CQ/EQ solves this problem by emulating consistency assertions such asconserved quantities, not by enforcing them at the end of a transaction,but by conserving them during the transaction in the entangled links,through the use of unforgeable tokens which are unique to each link, andthis can be made to appear “atomic” in the exchange (one and only onecan appear in the link).

For the case where packets get lost, the link is held in a deliberatelyinconsistent state that is recognizable by agents on both sides of thelink (and their witnesses), and can thereby be recovered using anorderly process.

Links that are disconnected (the probability is small) or cells whichare powered down will record (on any persistent media such as SSD's),the ID's and sequence numbers of each of its links. They then can berecovered “offline”. Links that are disconnected and then if the cellspower-down, they will first record (on any persistent media such asNVRAM or SSDs), the IDs and sequence numbers of the tokens on each ofits links. These IDs and transactions can then be recovered “offline”.For example, when cells are powered back up they can connect and verifythe very same neighbors they went down with, and (through alternateroutes) communicate the state of the transaction and recover it tocompletion. This is consistent the notion of a Tc time record in theattached paper “TimeOne” which is incorporated herein by reference.

The trees of Entangled Links form a lattice where order can align fromone direction to another based on the operations one wishes to carryout.

Serialization may also occur through a single token which may bemigrated to where it is needed in the barycenter of the network of“currently cooperating cohorts”. For example, 404 in FIG. 4 .

C. Transactions

Conventional transaction processing systems use a three-partytransaction: a sender, a receiver (each with their own (linearizable)consistency mechanisms on a master data object), and a 3rd party “commitcoordinator” (transaction Manager) to coordinate the activity betweenthe sender and receiver. If both entities do not report a consistentupdate of their data structures, the transaction manager backs out thetransaction so that both parties can return to being free, independentand unchanged. Typically ACID (Atomic, Consistent, Indivisible andDurable) are the properties considered important in a correct andreliable transaction. A related requirement, of conventional accountingsystems, is to provide double-entry bookkeeping, to ensure theconservation of transactions and provide visible audit mechanisms.

This conventional notion of a transaction in a transaction processingsystem is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of a transactionwhere physical assets or currency are exchanged; or the notion oftransactions in physics, where physical quantities such as energy,momentum, mass, charge, spin, and color are conserved. Unliketransaction processing systems, the dictionary and physics definitionsrequire only two parties in the transaction. The theoretical minimum fora usable concept of a transaction is therefore two participating cellsor nodes, not three in the case of conventional databases. In order forthis bipartite system to persistently preserve the transaction in theevent of failures, either or both nodes may have any number of“witnesses”, either directly connected, or recursively connected in achain or tree (the witness tree). This allows the transaction operationitself to be parameterized by various forms of witness requirements andpromises, such as being propagated through and “snarled” by one or morelocal cells (nodes) as it is on its way to a more geographically remotedatacenter or location to mitigate the potential impact of localdisasters such as earthquakes, fires or floods.

The present invention relates to a cellular algorithm, and a protocol,that operates at its core as a reversible two-party local CellularAutomata Transaction (CAT), where a given quantity is either conserved,or an equivalent quantity is exchanged, but with any number of witnessesthat can validate that the transaction took place. The (consensuallyvalidated) trust is based on emulation of the fundamentalcharacteristics of physical objects or quantities that cannot be creatednor destroyed in nature (such as information). In a computer system suchentities can be composed and labeled by cryptographic techniques. Thisinvention provides a method for automatically discovering and assigningroles in a transaction, validating that their mutually agreed uponconditions are met, and ensuring that neither side will be stuck withresponsibility for a failed transaction or is able to dumpresponsibility if the transaction fails (repudiation).

Cellular automata are discrete dynamical systems whose behavior iscompletely specified in terms of a local relation (or rule), much as isthe case for a large class of continuous dynamical systems defined bypartial differential equations

D. Two-Phase Commit Protocol

From Gray “If however, the restriction that the protocol have somefinite fixed maximum length is related then a solution is possible. Aprotocol may require arbitrarily many messages”. “The key to the successof this approach (the two phase commit) is that the decision to commithas been centralized to a single place and is not time constrained.”

E. Locking

Locking is a concurrency control mechanism used over files, databasesand data structures in general. They were designed when mostapplications were written for execution on a single multiprogrammedcomputer, so that multiple users can work on the same data at the sametime and not interfere with each other. In systems with more availablehardware concurrency, such as multicore or distributed systems, lockinghas become the single largest factor in limiting performance andscalability.

Lock contention occurs when one process holds the lock(s) that preventanother process from accessing the data structure. These other processesblocked by the lock must either wait or sleep until the lock isreleased. Not only does this dramatically limit the concurrency of asystem, it also represents a serious failure hazard in that the processthat holds the lock can fail.

Another problem with locks, which is less easy to characterize, butnonetheless significant, is the complexity that they cause inapplication programming when trying to “tune” the performance of theapplication instance.

A more serious locking impact on performance arises from deadlocks. Adeadlock occurs when two user processes each have a lock on a separatepage or table and each wants to acquire a lock on the same page or tableheld by the other process. The transaction with the least accumulatedCPU time is killed and all of its work is rolled back.

F. Reversibility

This reversible two party transaction may be extended to other partiesor other witnesses along a linear chain or a tree-based set ofarbitrarily cascaded cells interspersed between various substitutabletransacting entities, and a reversible protocol that guarantees that theconserved (CQ) or exchanged quantities (EQ) are: (a) Safe, i.e., neverlost in the face of failures, disasters or attacks, (b) Live: i.e.,execute deadlock-free in every conceivable circumstance of cell, networkor software failures, including arbitrary network partitioning andmerges, and (c) Conserve certain quantities within a defined domain ofdiscourse, with guarantees that cannot be repudiated by either side of atransaction. Note that the concept of live-lock, although preventable bypolicies agreed upon by the transacting parties, is an integral anddesirable property of the system, unlike in conventional distributedsystems which regards such a possibility as undesirable.

This invention is designed so that a system based on its principles canbe deliberately maintained in continuous interminable live-lock, untilthe transactions are either fully completed and disentangled, or theyare fully terminated and disentangled. It is this capability of theinvention that we designate as entanglement, and which we claim is a newand significant property of transactions that has heretofore never beenmade mathematically and operationally discernible in order to providevaluable functionality enabling systems to intrinsically recover fromfailures, disasters and attacks without the need for humanadministration in the first line of response, as well as providing a keyinterface for automated audit and verification of logical quantities ina systems, to ensure the integrity of individual commercial or othertransactions, or for an economic environment as a whole, where it isimportant to guarantee the conservation of some quantity (such as themoney supply in an economy), and visibility, at least into the extent offraudulent or counterfeiting activities within the system.

Such a transaction system has the capability to fundamentally simplifythe business environment, particularly in an eCommerce, multi-partyelectronic transaction, by eliminating many modes of fraudulent orexploitive behavior, by ensuring the correct and robust progression ofstates from beginning to end, with no single party being able to gainadvantage without the protocol being able to make this transparent toboth sides. Such a property enables other desirable capabilities insecuring robustness in an extended business environment, because mosttransactions in this arena are necessarily extended in time; andmaintaining a robust, verifiable and audit-able intermediate, orentangled, state, allows both parties to trust the new transactionsystem more than conventional systems that remain vague or oftenundefined in the mechanism, leaving business exposed to the need forcomplex and error-prone legal documents to moderate the behavior oftraders in an economy.

Entangled transactions may be implemented by any marked graph (petri-netstyle) protocol augmented to guarantee to the conversation of resources.Such a protocol must also be modified to be fully and completelyreversible at the fundamental bit/byte/packet level in a communicationbetween two or more distinct nodes or cells; and can be countablyspecialized into, for example, escrow and observer cells. This notion ofa reversible-tension during the finite window of two parties transactingbusiness, creates a deliberately entangled transaction, with anextensible but finite number of distributed states that can becontrolled by an appropriate protocol, in accordance to a set of agreedupon rules by the parties. In business, this agreed upon set of rules isreferred to as a contract. This invention allows such contracts to bemathematically specified, formally verified, and automatically validatedduring operations, especially in real-time high frequency systems.

Unlike the tokenized approach of May, we seek a fully reversible notionof token passing that precisely mimics the EQ/CQ principles for digitalobjects, and which serves as a foundation for the principle of entangledlinks described above. These entanglements may, in turn, be used toestablish a form of spatiotemporal “structural cohesion” across sets ofcooperating nodes, which persist in spite of failures in individualnodes and links, and which may evolve over time to accommodateextensions, reconfiguration and general evolution of the infrastructure,such as described in Patent No. 60/762,286: “Attack and DisasterResilient Cellular Storage Systems and Methods”, and patent #20100165886“Self-Healing Communication Trees.”

The first goal of this invention is to provide a reversible action thatcan transfer (and when necessary, untransfer) a unit of information in away that is robust to failures, beyond that available in conventionalcomputer to computer communications in a distributed system. Conservedor exchanged quantities are fundamental to the new protocol, and providea new correctness criteria for a distributed system, with guarantees ofboth safety and liveness, even in a byzantine environment (anything atcan go wrong, will, and some actors may be malicious in addition tobeing faulty).

G. Theoretical Foundation

In addition to the quantum mechanical foundation described earlier, thecomputer science essence of this invention exploits the theory of markedgraphs, which were obvious to developers in this field as an extensionto Petri Nets in the 1970s, although marked graphs are one way toimplement such systems, there are others. In fact, any physical systemwhich is capable of guaranteeing (at a fundamental level), theconservation of some quantity, is a candidate for an implementationtechnology for entangled links. Quantum entanglement, where spin isconserved, is an example described previously. What this invention isabout, is: extending the essential property of an entangled pair ofentities (conserving a quantity), into the classical domain, andcomposing active relationships among other classical objects in adistributed computer system to maintain the conserved quantity (CQ) orexchanged quantity (EQ) property, in order to provide fundamentallyrobust communications and information transfer in a distributed system.

A “channel” can be regarded as a process in which “events” happen inpairs comprising the atomic transmission and reception of some unit ofinformation. However, the conventional nature of a process commonlyaccepted in computer science, is fundamentally different to the natureof the characteristic behavior desired in a channel as described above.

With the right mechanisms in place, relationships between processes in adistributed system can be characterized with greater richness and thathas been done so far, and with mathematical precision. This presents anew kind of link between processes in a graph structure, and provides afundamental property that may feasibly be exploited by a programmerthrough language primitives that enable this fundamental property to bedirectly accessed simply and reliably.

This becomes important, for example, in systems with an indefinitelylarge number of stored objects, each of which may have an indefinitenumber of replicas which must maintain their structural connection tothe “set” of sibling replicas, so that their structure and relationshipscan be maintained in spite of perturbations (failures, disasters orattacks—including cyber) to the system. Higher level functions may be ofany type, including create, replicate, evaporate (delete localreplicas), update (update or append all replicas with some commutativeoperation), or any set of operations on the replicas specified by theapplication.

Another intended use: Classical computer programming techniques alsopersist only the data (files/databases), or snapshots of programexecution (virtual machine images). The mechanism described in thisinvention provides a foundation so that the relationships between theseentities can be persisted in the form of virtual self-healing graphsmanaged by cooperating agents, such as that described in Patent No.60/762,286: “Attack and Disaster Resilient Cellular Storage Systems andMethods”. The challenge such systems face, which is addressed by thisinvention, is maintaining integrity and structure of these relationshipsthrough failure and reconfiguration of the links and system componentsas the program executes. If this could be done simply and reliably (fromthe perspective of a programmer or system administrator), this wouldprovide a rich characterization of connectedness, where previously TRUEand FALSE where the only possible values for the property of “connected”in conventional link-state management. This would allow finergraduations and more diverse responses by a program, beyond a simpletimeout and a specified number of retries.

Entangled Links provide a verifiable, provable, and atomic element thatmay be composed into higher level structures that support system-widepredicates to assist with distributed computations and enable sharedawareness of exogenous events (so that other resources can be dispatchedto identify and respond to them based on correlated patterns of eventsand historical recognition of prior behaviors).

This provides a large number of derivative benefits, such as percolationof locally observable data to remote cells subscribed to the stream forinstrumentation purposes, computational spiders that wish to performcollective functions such as distributed counting, or initiation oflatency (ping) signature measurements of suspected hostile IP addressesto support triangulation of potential attackers.

Time

This invention does not claim a scientific discovery, but rather how toinnovatively use this insight to achieve certain overall goals in thedesign and deployment of distributed systems, particularly those whichare intended to be robust to perturbations, and scale-independent. Theprecise identification of the time-and-irreversibility related issues indistributed systems are resolved through the mechanisms described inthis disclosure.

The issues include relativity (absolute simultaneity) and quantummechanics (absolute determinism). We challenge the implicit and oftenunspoken assumptions regarding simultaneity, monotonicity andirreversibility in in the computer science literature (see appendix inprovisional). Our belief is that existing “models of time” indistributed algorithms lead to either failure of those algorithms, anunnecessarily constrained thought process regarding concurrency, orboth. The Entangled Links mechanism is the first “brick” in a newfoundation of network computing. From this “brick” we can compose manyrecoverability mechanisms, cyber-defense mechanisms, and establish thefeedback mechanisms that enable systems to self-organize.

The fundamental idea is to create a new model of ‘time”, which avoidsthese known limitations of absolute simultaneity, monotonicity andirreversibility; allowing us to build more resilient distributedsystems. As a very minimum, we expect to provide a simpler and morecorrect model for use in reasoning about time in infrastructures thatmake extensive use of virtual machine (virtualization) technology.

Eternal time has three basic qualities: It can last forever; It iscontains everything that can ever happen, It is always in thepresent—never in the past or the future. Entangled links may (because ofresource constraints) be bounded in how far back a computation may go.However, in principle, by “reversing” information rather than “erasing”information we can safely eliminate the need for storage of intermediatestates that have been safely reversed.

In the model described in this invention, observable time is change:which passes only by a relative, persistent and observable transfer ofinformation between elements:

By change, we mean a potentially reversible transfer of information(happen).

By relative, we mean from the specific locality of the observation (theself-vertex).

By persistent, we mean, it did not change back (unhappen) before beingobserved.

By observable, we mean that until information is irreversiblytransferred to a third party, as far as other observers observing theobserver are concerned, it has not yet occurred.

The vertices & edges model of this invention provides for only two kindsof temporal awareness: the temporal awareness inside the vertices, whichwe typically associate with a process and a sequential, monotonicallyincreasing clock; and the temporal awareness of the edges (which weelevate to a first class citizen in this invention), and associate withit the transfer of information. A key distinction between our model andthat typically assumed in the computer science literature, is that bothof these sub-models of time can literally go forwards and backwardsindefinitely by the reversible transfer of information along the edges,until this information is irreversibly transferred to other observer(s)along the edges, or erased in the vertices (dissipating energy).

An important aspect of our model of time, is that it allows thepossibility of a somewhat arbitrarily long recursive transfer ofinformation from one observer to another, and as long as it is in achain or tree (acyclic graph), then information will not be lost orerased, but then all this progress can also be undone, all the way backto some arbitrary point in the past, and any observer outside that chainor graph will be none the wiser, as if whatever happened in the graphnever existed at all. This is the foundational issue for dataconsistency, which we address in this invention.

Information can also be circulated throughout the graph, without beinglost or erased, and observers tapping into this cycle of information canrelay that information to other observers bringing ever larger number ofedges and vertices into the entanglement. This is the basis forentangled trees.

Protocol

This mechanism works in conjunction with the ENTL to ensure thatdistributed nodes in a network can communicate on a logically nearestneighbor basis in a reliable manner, that arriving messages passed overthese links are handled in a manner that does not produce conflict orexceed the constraints of available resource. It does this, for example,by having a priority of packet transfers such that the ENTL packets aredisplaced (set aside) when transaction(ENTT) packets are in the buffer,or if other “higher priority buffers are ready to go. See FIG. 23 forthe Priority Queue Engine.

Classical techniques also persist only the data (files/databases), orsnapshots of program execution (virtual machine images). What is missingis a foundation for the relationships between these entities to bepersisted, managed and more richly characterized, in the form ofself-healing graphs, across an evolving physical infrastructure, managedby cooperating agents. (Such as those described in Patent \#60/762,286:“Attack and Disaster Resilient Cellular Storage Systems and Methods”).

Timeouts are inconsistent with delay-and-disruption-tolerant networking,support for which is a key architectural goal of Earth core. Inconventional TCP communication: the agent says “send this message onthis link” and notify me only if the communication fails. This meansthat the TCP stack buffers and schedules the message and, if the messageis synchronous, blocks the agent until the message goes out, and anacknowledge is received, or (if the message is asynchronous, attempt tosend a message with an arbitrary timeout). In Entangled link heartbeats(non-TCP traffic), we have independent distinctions of connection state,enabling us to distinguish (at least): (a) local electrical link state,(b) heartbeat state with a local neighbor one hop away (which is be ourproxy for more distant communication on the network), (c) heartbeatstate on 2nd or subsequent hops further away from the sender, and (d)loss of connection with a final destination, which may be an actualcell-down situation. Entanglements allow us to respond more quickly thanwaiting for a timeout that covers the conditions (b) through (d).

The latency awareness, packet-loss awareness and mutual interruptservice routine code certification of entanglements helps guard againstboth code infiltration at higher levels in the nodes, and man-in-themiddle attacks between nodes. The two sub-mechanisms are: first, thelink management code is implemented at a low level, possibly in kernelmode within the device driver.

However, the conventional nature of a “process” commonly accepted incomputer science, is fundamentally different to the nature of thecharacteristic behavior desired in an entangled channel as describedabove.

With the right mechanisms in place, relationships between processes in adistributed system can be characterized with greater richness than hasbeen done so far, and with mathematical precision. This presents a newkind of “link” between “processes” in a graph structure, and provides afundamental property that may be exploited by a programmer throughlanguage primitives that enable this fundamental property to be directlyaccessed simply and reliably.

The Dynamic Locality Secure Protocol (dlsp) extends the propertiesacross long links such as those on a WAN that use IP (interne protocol),either with TCP, or with SCTP as the transport. The desired property isthat “both sides” know exactly what state the other side is inimmediately after any physical or other break in the communication pathbetween them. The ENTL design, in conjunction with dlsp goes as far asis theoretically possible in maintaining this “awareness”. Even thoughpackets can be lost, and senders will be unable to know if a packetarrived at a receiver, it can still maintain the entangled link “instasis” indefinitely, while requesting the lower level mechanisms to“heal” or find alternate paths around which to dynamically evolvethrough failures and recoveries. For example, using the “Self-HealingCommunication Trees” Patent.

Because Earthcore cells are directly connected to each other, and mostoperations are expected to be “multi-hop”, this enables a higher levelproperty we call a “recursive proxy”; this is the ability for a cell(for example when ingesting data), to pass data along in the mostreliable way possible to an immediate neighbor with an independent andisolatable failure domain.

Each cell is, by definition, independent, autonomous and self-contained:a truly“independent” failure domain is isolatable. Even thepower-supplies and UPS for each cell incompletely independent of itsneighbor (cells have their own private battery to ensure orderlyshutdown and persistence of data in the event of power loss).

‘Successive reversibility’ is the ability of the link to move backwardsand forwards from an observed information perspective. Information is“reversed” (as if it didn't exist) when the party on either side wishesto “back up” or “reverse” the computation. For example, in a way thatmight be analogous to “rollback” in conventional two phase commitprotocol.

There are two mechanisms: firstly, the link management code isimplemented at a low level, possibly in kernel mode within the devicedriver. Secondly, the very fast response and general awareness oflatency and link integrity, make man-in-the-middle attacks easier todetect and harder to implement.

Protocol Details

The primitive communication element of our system (the building block)is an “entangled link” between nodes that enables logically nearestneighbor computers to be connected in a reliable manner. This approachto resilient connections helps ensure that breaks in communicationbetween nodes do not have an unexpected negative impact upon the agentsor communicating applications that depend upon them, and that the natureof the break (duration, severity, etc.) can be communicated to theapplication and operating system processes that utilize them, while theunderlying mechanisms continue their process of recovery and healing.

Our intention is to recognize that this relationship will becomefundamental to the engineering of reliable and scaleable(scale-independent) distributed systems as is the difference betweenfermions and bosons in physics, and that their temporal behaviorexhibits fundamentally different characteristics, from each of theirperspectives, and that this distinction can fruitfully be exploited tobuild scalable distributed systems.

Reactive systems are those whose role is to maintain an ongoinginteraction with their environment rather than produce some result upontermination of an algorithm. Typical examples of reactive systems areair traffic control systems, mechanical devices such as thermostats,airplanes, or complex industrial control processes such as a nuclearreactor monitoring and control.

Objects, agents, actors, or whatever is the reader's favorite metaphorfor an “encapsulated, namable entity” saturates the computer scienceliterature to such an extent that their properties become so diverselydefined that they are no longer mathematically tractable. However, evenwith clear definitions of these entities that would satisfy amathematician's penchant for precision and perspicuity, no mechanisms,processes or language exists to program resilient infrastructures,because current approaches focus only on a single dominant entity typein a distributed system: the entity we refer to as the cell. What ismissing, as a first class citizen, is the fully developed concept of alink.

What is important, are the relationships between these entities, carriedby the links that connect them. We know from the study of other systemsin nature and sociology that properties such as “trust” lies in therelationships, not in the entities themselves. We promote therelationships (in the form of physical connections between cells, andlogical connections between replicas) to first class citizens in ourarchitecture. When we consider the characteristics of both cells andlinks. Vertices and edges, nodes and interconnections: any categorytreating entities and their relationships equally.} as bona-fide andequally valid citizens in the architecture, can we now develop a “theoryof resilient infrastructure”.

In this way, the links between the cells can be considered as separate,independent computational entities in their own right: a self-propellingheartbeat mechanism triggered by a hot potato packet on both ends of thelink maintains mutual awareness of the state of the link, and issemantically and temporally independent of the agents, operatingsystems, virtual machines, and applications running on the cells.

Examples of Application Areas

1. Entangled Bipartite Transactions

2. Replication

3. Transactions

4. Multi-Party Transactions (See SMPT)

5. Escrow Services

6. Consensus/Leader Election

7. Multi-Tenant Cloud Infrastructures

8. Secure Information Exchanges

The present invention in this and other implementations may optionallyinclude one or more of the following features or achieve theseadvantages. For example, features may include:

A set of entangled links in any combination described by a Graph G=(V,E) or Tree T=(V′, E′) where (V′⊆V) V (E′⊂E), and where one or more E isan entangled link.

Instrumentation that can make measurements and diagnostic checks inline,and, through the state-file mechanism, select a separate tree fortransmission of the instrumentation data so as to not perturb theprimary path as little as possible when debugging.

Percolation (from sheaf theory)—ability to diffuse informationthroughout the system based on spare (unused) data slots,non-intrusively. Additionally, methods where data percolation is used todiffuse information throughout the system based on link stateinformation.

Separation of autonomic behavior or activity from auditability.“Separation of concerns” enables independent audit of systems (forexample for security audits). This includes separation of timestamps forreversible transactions, and simple statistics for irreversibletransactions. Timestamps and log entries are normally absent from theentangled link. They are conceptually incompatible with the notion ofreversible time within the link. i.e. in conventional networks, a linkupor link down signal would be recorded in a log. This is not the case forentangled links. They simply go into a perpetual healing mode and waitto find themselves reconnected (either physically or otherwise). Thiswill reduce the traffic and storage used by log messages. The operatoralways knows what is going on. The entangled link either remainsperpetually in entanglement mode, until it breaks, or it remainsperpetually in repair mode until it is healed. There is no need to logthese events.

A set of entangled links in any combination with a set of nodes formingan arbitrarily large connected set of nodes with a temporal awareness ofthe collective, through aggregation of the information provided by theentangled links, and percolation (the passage of background informationin otherwise unused packet slots over the entangled links).

Entangled trees having a set of cells connected by entangled links in anarbitrary graph as described above, with a one or more spanning treeoverlay networks each of which is rooted on the cell which initiates thespanning tree. Each tree is individually identified as an EntanglementTree, and is labeled with the identifier of the initiating cell, andremains in existence as long as the initiating cell remains in existenceand offspring cells remain as long as they are transitively connected toeach other through some finite number of cells.

Alternate path selection for percolation information usinginstrumentation similar to that described above to select a separatetree for transmission of the instrumentation data so as not to perturbthe primary path when debugging. This selection may be negotiated withthe owner of that tree as part of the Metadata Tensor Mechanism (MDTM)

A unique, idempotent, and reversible cryptographic token exchange whichpresents no visible indication of progress until a communication ofinformation needs to occur between the computers, and which maintainsthe potential for bounded (or unbounded) “reversibility”.

Secure Multi-Party Transactions (SMPT)

Secure Multi-Party Transactions (SMPT) refer to a multi-cellulardistributed system, and a protocol, that operates at its core as areversible two-party local Cellular AutomataTransaction (CAT), where agiven quantity is either conserved, or an equivalent quantity isexchanged, but with any number of witnesses that can validate that thetransaction took place. The (consensually validated) trust is based onemulation of the fundamental characteristics of physics where quantitiesthat cannot be created not destroyed in nature. In a computer systemsuch quantities can be created and persisted by cryptographictechniques. SMPT provides a method for automatically discovering andassigning roles in a transaction, validating that their mutually agreedupon promises are met, and ensuring that neither side will be stuck withresponsibility for a failed transaction or is able to dumpresponsibility if the transaction fails, or repudiate if the transactionsucceeds.

Conventional transaction processing systems use a three-partytransaction: a sender, a receiver (each with their own [linearizable]consistency mechanisms on a master data object), and a third-partyTransaction Manager to coordinate the activity between the sender andreceiver. If both entities do not report a consistent update of theirdata structures, the Transaction Manager rolls back the transaction sothat both parties can return to being free, independent and unchanged.Typically ACID (Atomic, Consistent, Indivisible and Durable) are theproperties considered important in a correct and reliable transaction. Arelated requirement of conventional accounting systems is to providedouble-entry bookkeeping, to ensure the conservation of transactions andprovide visible audit mechanisms.

This conventional notion of a transaction in a transaction processingsystem is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of a transactionwhere physical assets or currency are exchanged; or the notion oftransactions in physics, where physical quantities such as energy ormomentum are conserved. Unlike transaction processing systems, thedictionary and physics definitions require only two parties in thetransaction.

This invention relates to a multi-cellular algorithm, and a protocol,that operates at its core as a reversible two-party local CellularAutomata Transaction (CAT), where a given quantity is either conserved,or an equivalent quantity is exchanged, but with any number of witnessesthat can validate that the transaction took place. The (consensuallyvalidated) trust is based on emulation of the fundamentalcharacteristics of physical objects or quantities that cannot be creatednot destroyed in nature. In a computer system such quantities can becreated and memorized by cryptographic techniques. This inventionprovides a method for automatically discovering and assigning roles in atransaction, validating that their mutually agreed upon conditions aremet, and ensuring that neither side will be stuck with responsibilityfor a failed transaction or is able to dump responsibility or repudiateif the transaction fails or succeeds.

Cellular automata are discrete dynamical systems whose behavior iscompletely specified in terms of a local relation (or rule), much as isthe case for a large class of continuous dynamical systems defined bypartial differential equations. In this sense, cellular automata are thecommuter scientist's counterpart to the physicist's concept of field.

Reversibility is a universal characteristic of physical law. Inparticular, it is a precondition for the second law of thermodynamics tohold (for locally-interacting systems having a finite amount ofinformation per site, such as cellular automata, reversibility isequivalent to the second law of thermodynamics) and a sufficientcondition for the existence of conserved quantities. (In physics, areversible system having n degrees of freedom possesses 2n−1 conservedquantities, some of which [e.g., energy, momentum, etc.] are of specialsignificance because of their connection with fundamental symmetries ofthe physical laws. The arguments that lead to these conservation lawscan be generalized to cellular automata: the key idea is that a givenstate encodes all of the information necessary to identify theparticular dynamical trajectory it lies on, and if the system isreversible, none of this information is lost in the course of evolutionor de-evolution).

This reversible two-party transaction may be extended to other partiesor witnesses along a linear chain or a tree-based set of arbitrarilycascaded cells interspersed between various substitutable transactingentities, and a reversible protocol that guarantees that the quantitiesare conserved (CQ) or exchanged quantities (EQ) are: (a) safe, i.e.,never lost in the face of failures, disasters or attacks; (b) live,i.e., execute deadlock-free in every conceivable circumstance of cell,network or software failures, including arbitrary network partitioningand merges, and; (c) conserve (quantities can be conserved in adistributed system through the generation of cryptographically uniquetokens from the equivalent of a “treasury” or certificate server).Certain quantities within a defined domain of discourse, with guaranteesthat cannot be repudiated by either side of a transaction (i.e., no netloss or gain of that quantity. This provides a mathematically provablesystem, such that no party in a multi-party transaction can be swindledby any combination of the other parties.). Note that the concept oflive-lock, although preventable by policies agreed upon by thetransacting parties, is an integral and desirable property of thissystem, unlike in conventional distributed systems which regard such apossibility as undesirable.

This invention is designed so that a system based on its principles canbe deliberately maintained in continuous interminable live-lock, untilthe transactions are either fully completed and disentangled, or theyare fully terminated and disentangled. It is this capability of theinvention that we designate as entangled in a transaction sense. We aimto provide a new and significant property of transactions that ismathematically and operationally discernible, and provide practicalmechanisms to help distributed systems recover from failures, disastersand attacks without the need for human administration in the first lineof response. We also provide a key interface for automated audit andverification of logical quantities in a distributed system, to ensurethe integrity of individual commercial or other transactions. The fieldof application extends to economic environments where it is important toguarantee the conservation of some quantity (such as the money supply inan economy), and visibility, at least into the extent that it canreadily expose fraudulent or counterfeiting activities. Thesecapabilities may be hidden from normal or malicious users of the system,but will be transparent to the system owners and their supervisorypersonnel.

Such a transaction system has the capability to fundamentally simplifythe business environment, particularly in an e-commerce multi-partyelectronic transactions, eliminating many modes of fraudulent orexploitive behavior by ensuring the correct and robust progression ofstates from beginning to end—with no single party being able to gainadvantage without the protocol being able to make this transparent toboth sides.

Such a property enables other desirable capabilities in securingrobustness in an extended business environment because: (a) manytransactions in the business arena are necessarily extended in time; (b)maintaining a robust, verifiable and auditable intermediate, orentangled state allows both parties to trust the new “transactionsystem” more than conventional systems that remain vague or oftenundefined in this property; (c) conventional businesses are exposed tothe need for complex and error-prone legal documents to moderate thebehavior of traders in an economy. This can now be replaced by automatedpredicates in the entangled transaction system that save in both humanlabor and human error.

Entangled transactions may be implemented by any marked graph (petri-netstyle) protocol augmented to guarantee to the conversation of resources.Such a protocol must also be modified to be fully and completelyreversible at the fundamental bit/byte/packet level in a communicationbetween two or more distinct nodes or cells; and can be countablyspecialized into, e.g., escrow and observer cells. This notion of areversible-tension during the finite window of two parties transactingbusiness, creates a deliberately entangled transaction, with anextensible but finite number of distributed states that can becontrolled by an appropriate protocol, in accordance to a set of agreedupon rules by the parties. In business, this agreed upon set of rules isreferred to as a contract. This invention allows such contracts to bemathematically specified, formally verified, and automatically validatedduring operations, especially in real-time high frequency systems.

The first goal of Secure Multi-Party Transactions is to provide atransaction system that is robust to failures, far beyond the singlemaster data nodes in conventional transaction processing systems.Conserved or exchanged quantities are fundamental to the new protocoland provide a new correctness criteria for a distributed system, withguarantees of both safety and liveness, even in a byzantine environment(anything that can go wrong, will—and some actors will be malicious inaddition to being faulty).

A second goal is to extend the intermediate cells to provide redundancyand node specialization, such as any kind of intermediate holding bufferwhere quantities are staged in readiness for the entire transaction tocomplete, e.g., various forms of escrow account, an independentjurisdiction, or a trusted 3rd party. However, because the whole systemis designed to be cryptographically secure (with hierarchical andrecursively encapsulated data objects), the only visibility the escrowhas is in the outer-wrapper of the objects themselves being exchanged.

A third goal is to improve transaction latency in transaction-sensitiveapplications. By pre-staging data to the physical location(s) anapplication requires to complete the transaction, we transmit only theconfirmatory change data to commit the transaction. Note: automaticrepayment, transaction reversals/rescissions/etc., occupy the realm ofapplication logic, not infrastructure requirements. Further, theseissues have already been solved by application systems years ago(whether they work well or not is a different issue in a differentmarket). The essence of this invention relates to marked graphs, whichwere obvious to developers in this field as an extension to Petri Netsin the 1970s. Although marked graphs are one way to implement suchsystems, there are others. In fact, any physical system which is capableof guaranteeing (at a fundamental level) the conservation of somequantity, is a candidate for an implementation technology. What thisinvention is about is: emulating the essential property of a quantumentangled pair of entities (with the Hermitian conservation of energy)into the classical world, and composing active relationships among otherclassical objects in a distributed computer system. This enables us tomaintain conserved quantities (CQ) or exchanged (EQ) quantities as adigital property in the computer system. This in turn enablesfundamentally more robust distributed transactions for e-commerce, andother systems where transactionality and persistency “promises” areessential to the reliable and trustable functions expected by the usersof the system.

FIG. 19A is a network diagram of example entangled transactions throughearthcore and conventional routers. FIG. 19A is a network diagram ofexample of entanglement through intermediate cells, without those cellsparticipating in the endpoint function (such as entangled transactions).

Figure showing chained entanglement spanning multiple cells. All linksbetween cells in have independent entanglements. Higher-level bipartiteentanglements (piggybacked on the entanglement packets) can be createdacross multiple cells with intermediate cells fast forwardingentanglement packets, and endpoints acting as reflectors.

FIG. 19A shows a chained entanglement spanning multiple cells. All linksbetween cells in have independent entanglements. Higher-level bipartiteentanglements (piggybacked on the entanglement packets) can be createdacross multiple cells with intermediate cells fast forwardingentanglement packets, and endpoints acting as reflectors.

Entangled Transactions. One of the principal problems with Applicationinfrastructures is the inability to count on a router or switch to notdrop packets. While the loss of a router or switch may be a majorperturbation event, the loss of packets is commonplace and the normalexpectation of networking hardware. If those packets contain criticaldata, such as that in an Atomic Information Transfer (AIT), used inEntangled Transactions above, then, even though the amount of data issmall, it would have a very large impact on the ability to recover. Thiscauses applications (and databases) to have to take on theresponsibility for failure protection and recovery, which is anextraordinarily complex and difficult undertaking to burden theapplication with, and which fails for all but the simplest perturbationscenarios.

The essence of this invention is the ability to build an end to endsystem where each element along the chain provides guarantees (promises)not to drop certain types of packets. While the majority of application(data) traffic may still be subject to the normally expected loss ofpackets and the need to retry, this invention now allows a special kindof traffic (entangled transactions) where the intermediate cells(including switches/routers or servers) promise to maintain the CQ/EQproperties required to create reliable delivery of Atomic InformationTransfer (AIT) tokens.

The availability of an Entangled Link over the next hop in the networkindicates the availability of a cell that is able to promise to not droppackets. Indeed, the mere offer of an entanglement mode over this hopimplies this promise.

FIG. 19B is a block diagram of example entangled transactions throughnon-participating intermediate cells and/or and conventional routers.FIG. 19B shows Atomic Information Transfer of conserved quantity (theentanglement token) over an entangled chain. Protocol designed to ensurethat black and white states on these tokens are always complimentary(emulation of quantum teleportation).

Multicast and Knowledge of Lost Tokens. In theory and in practice, it isfar easier to detect, diagnose and recover from failures when there areonly two entities communicating, and there are no intermediatemechanisms such as switches or routers. The entangled links comprisingboth ends of the connection have 4 possibilities regarding themaintenance of CQ/EQ tokens (side A has it, side B has it, both side Aand B have it, and neither side has it). That is it: 4 combinations, twoof which are desirable, and two of which are undesirable, but detectableand recoverable, as reflected in an earlier section of this application.

In a network where there are N nodes attached to the interconnect,discovering which of the N nodes has a lost token (or none of them)becomes exponentially complex.

In a cell/link system, every cell knows which other cell (and whichport) it is associated with. Sessions are created below the protocolstack such that presence is managed, failures are detected (and healed)and privacy is maintained. Security is also significantly enhanced bythe extremely low and predictable latency between the neighboring cellsover a single link. Although it may still be possible forman-in-the-middle attacks prior to rendezvous of the entangled links, itwould be significantly more difficult to introduce one after two cellshave gotten to know each other and to characterize the link thatseparates them.

A significant benefit of direct (most proximate, minimum length)connections between cells is in their ability to detect and reconcileatomic information transfer tokens both in the link during transientfailures, as well as around healed connections after a permanentfailure. Clique-wide, colony-wide and complex-wide validation checks foraccurate conservation checking of tokens is provided by the metadatatensor (distributed calculation of the determinant of the adjacencymatrix). When used in conjunction with the local knowledge of losttokens (i.e. on which link the token was lost), this affords asignificant benefit to system reliability and recoverability, as well asa verification mechanism to provide assurance of correctness duringsystem operation, particularly after a large scale failure, disaster orattack.

FIG. 20A shows an example entangled transaction system foradministration-free stock market transactions. FIG. 20A shows anentangled stock market transaction where traders are acting on behalf ofbrokers, who are acting on behalf of their clients. The entanglementsare set up pending some threshold for buy or sell. The seller's andbuyer's banks are already notified that a transaction is entangled—andcan verify, for example—that sufficient funds are available before thetransaction goes through. The two-way communication on the links is aregular (asynchronous) communication where entanglements are not needed,and those elements with an entanglement are indicated with a whitebullet indicating the pending transaction is entangled. Note thatdeadlocks are eliminated by requiring all the entangled links to form aDirected Acyclic Graph (DAG) for the entangled links. Any one of severalspanning tree algorithms may be used to create this DAG (a tree). Forexample the Dynamic Tree Algorithm specified in U.S. Pat. No. 8,259,620B2 (Self-Healing Communication Trees) may be used.

FIG. 20C shows a simple customer/lender relationship. Although this is asingle dimensional chain—from the perspective of a customer forexample—the lender may have many of these overlapping one-dimensionaltrees going on concurrently, and at the last minute is able to approvefunds down one path at the expense of another, based on the latestinformation they have. However, once funds are approved and released,the lender can no more back out of the transaction than the customer,who has signed a legal commitment to return the funds according to someschedule and with some interest, indicated by the conditions that firethe transitions between the cells.

Keep in mind, each of these cells in this path may have a differentowner, or even a different legal jurisdiction. This separation ofconcerns affords an opportunity to mitigate certain failure modes—wherefor example, a single owner has control over multiple parts of thesystem—and can subvert any swindle countermeasures that the systemotherwise would provide to independent owners. Each set of entanglementrules can be verified (and certified) by a model checker to guaranteethat the system has no conflict of interest or other flaws that wouldweaken the trust in the system. FIG. 20B shows an example of how thesystem could work in a multi-party system, but where the principalrelationship is between a builder and a home buyer. This shows only theinitial entanglement transaction. However, because the relationshipbetween the customer and the lender remains in effect for the life ofthe loan (which for a real estate transaction could be 30 years), thisstructure can easily be extended to automatic refinancing, interest ratechanges, or even a complete loan modification process.

The valuable characteristic of such a system is in its ability toconduct reliable and secure e-commerce transactions amongst multipleanonymous parties where the legal guarantees are built into the rules ofthe transitions, and the system affords all parties in a multi-partysystem verifiable assurance against theft by any of the other parties,even if they are working in collusion.

FIG. 20A shows a simplified example of a stock market tradingapplication of this technology. Notice that this marked-graph system cangrow, shrink and maintain consistent entanglements among all parties.For example, a trust relationship may already have been set up between abuyer and a broker, which transcends any individual transaction. Acommon trust of the transaction system is agreed to by each of the floortraders, and this trust is validated every time a successful transactionis reliably executed. A key advantage of this system is that thetime-critical transaction can be set up in a serialization focus—forexample between a broker in San Francisco, and a broker in New York—butthe key latency (speed of light) sensitive operation is confined to avery narrow time/space domain in the center. This has the potential tosignificantly speed up high speed trading; subsuming the Wissner-Gross,and Freer., Relativistic statistical arbitrage model. Keep in mind thatthe cells shown in the diagram are separate agent-based computersystems, which replace their human counterparts with a similar name.

A similar diagram would represent the relationships between buyers andsellers—in an electronic market such as eBay, for example. But, in thiscase the buyer's (or buyer's broker's) reputation is built into thesystem (as additional cells), maintaining that reputation as a digitalquantity that can be used, with a threshold, to fire the intermediatetransaction.

The whole purpose of this system is to ensure that buyers and sellerscan rely on the system to ensure that their transaction completesreliably and securely, and to mathematically characterize eachtransaction according to some risk (Bayesian) relationship that can bemanaged in real time (as opposed to some overnight clearing systemcurrently used in the banking industry).

Support for SMPT in the Earthcore Layers

Transactions may be expressed in a formal language, such as the GraphVirtual Machine (GVM). Desired behaviors in the Cloudplane andEarthplane layers are expressed by predicates—which are mathematicalstatements in the CAL—that guide the underlying DAL and NAL layers to dotheir best to maintain their promises whatever else happens, despiteperturbations (failures, disasters, attacks).

Predicates include self (cryptographically monotonic durations) andencrypted timestamp-server based rules, which the system maintains forthe “period” of the entanglement. For example, the transient period(locally-observed TSC) to complete a stock market transaction, or theperiod of the loan (months or years) for a bank and a customer).

GVM expressions are minimalist, simple, and provable. Entanglementstatements can be composed from lower-level, already proven or testedelements of the language. The language is explicitly NOT a UniversalTuring Machine. The code/data separation in the Graph Virtual Machine isNOT a von-Neumann architecture, making it substantially more difficultfor the code to be compromised by a running program or malformed rulesor statements. This reduction in Turing Universality allows systems tobe built with far more constrained security exposure, even down to acomplete entanglement (running on a secure operating system orhypervisor). Although Entanglements can be composed of simpler elements,they can be incrementally extended in their functionality to formprovable rule-trees that allow one or more forms of business logic to beapplied. Simple examples include the automatic triggering of remediesand penalties in case of default, late payments or once a yearforgiveness of a monthly loan payment. The goal is to make the rulesresilient to Byzantine failures in the system: either natural failuresand disasters or malicious physical or cyber attacks.

An important aspect of the system is that two or more cells may beinvolved in the multi-party entanglement. Although any number ofwitnesses can be attached to observe the entanglement, to ensure thatauditable transaction streams (in a preferably idempotent and immutabledata structure, such as that provided by the MetaData Tensor) can beobserved and verified by any number of witnesses.

Witnesses are independent cells, owned by separate business entities,potentially in independent jurisdictions. They may be simply backuprecord keepers, or they may be more formal auditors. In Earthcore, theidentification of these witness cells can be specified by thetransaction parties, or they may be automatically discovered andallocated (based on verification by some certificate authority) by theunderlying self-organizing mechanisms of Earthcore.

FIGS. 21A-21F are state diagrams for token transfer between cellscoupled by an entangled link.

FIG. 21A shows the simplest possible symmetric bipartite entanglement.The token received by one side would simply be retransmitted by theother side.

FIG. 21B shows a three state symmetric protocol, when a token isreceived, the first state is entered. The local transform status is thentested, where the protocol goes into the second state, the second stateis exited and third state entered when the packet has been sent back. Byhaving two different packet types (tick and tock) this state machine can(in principle) be reversed by sending the opposite packet type (pullinstead of push token).

FIG. 21C shows a Two States, One Packet: Token method. Noforward/backward observability. Every token is identical. (Untilinformation is transferred) Problem: Each side doesn't know if/when theother side has the token, until it sends the token back (and then theother side doesn't have the token again!). Can use Token payload toindicate different packet types. E.g. Ack of information (persistent onthis cell), and neighbor Ack (persistent on neighbor cell—this is usefulfor ingest reliability as well as entangled transactions).

FIG. 21D shows a three state protocol. Three States, Two Packets:Token+Ack. Transaction Confirmation: explicit (from Ack) Token now hasexplicit ack (to provide information that token has been received by theother side). Problem is that the other side has to send two packets insuccession with only a single event coming in. Also, this side has twostates that are really the same—wait for Token, and “still waiting fortoken”—there is no event distinguishing them that is observable fromthis side of the link.

This effectively collapses back into a 2 state system. This will happenwith any “odd” number of states. This illustrates that odd numbers ofstates implies an asymmetric two party relationship. Whereas, we areseeking (with Link Entanglement) a purely symmetric situation tomaintain entanglement, where the symmetry is broken by either partywishing to move the communication mode away from this equilibrium.

FIG. 21E shows a three state protocol. Four States Three Packets: Token,Ack, Ready, Token. Forward/backward flow is observable, as well asfailure modes when intermediate packets are sent.

FIG. 21F shows a six state protocol. Six States Three Packets: Token,Ack, Ready. Forward/backward flow is observable, as well as failuremodes when intermediate packets are sent (or lost). Note that a 4 statesystem (using matrix transforms is sufficient to emulate QM.

FIG. 22A is a block diagram showing a self organizing data network for aset of computer systems. FIG. 22A shows a self organizing data networkincluding a set of rack compute systems.

FIGS. 22B-22C are heat maps showing example temporal activity followingentangled link trees. FIG. 22B shows temporal activity followingentangled link trees, from top of rack (ingest/active data edge whereserialization foci live), down to bottom of rack (where entangled linktrees terminate in leaves). Alternative FIG. 22B, FIG. 22C showstemporal activity with hot data coming in on the right side, and colddata being evacuated or deleted on the left side. The FIGS. 22B-22C arean example use case of the entangled link trees. Where hot (active) datais ingested at the top (or right), with load-balancing, applicationconnections, and transaction requests coming in from the outside world,and the migration of data via consistency preserving pathways on theentangled trees from the hot end (roots) to the cold end (leaves).

FIG. 23 is a block diagram of an example of a priority queue engine andspecial buffers. The Priority Queue Engine (PQE) of FIG. 23 may beimplemented in software but its preferred embodiment is in hardware. ThePQE enforces the following precedence in the sending of packets: Buffersize represents the maximum amount of data that may be sent by thedevice driver in one uninterrupted session. In general: every 2nd packetcan be a (32K) data buffer send. Every 4th Packet can be a (64K) databuffer send. Every 8th Packet can be a (128K) data buffer send, and soon. Except for: special buffers: which must be sent before any databuffer can be sent (they may be sent to the DMA engine/NIC back toback).

At the beginning of each new session: If no packets exist in any otherbuffer, then entanglement packets are sent each time an entanglementpacket is received. If packets exist in the transaction buffer, thenentanglement packets are suppressed, and transaction packets are sentout, regardless of whatever exists in the data buffers. If packets existin the instrumentation buffer, then they may alternate with transactionbuffers (may be sent to the DMA engine/NIC back to back beforereturning).

FIG. 24 is a block diagram showing an example addressing scheme forcells. FIG. 24 shows an addressing method compatible self-healingcommunication trees, and attack and disaster resilient cellular storagesystems and methods. In particular, FIG. 24 illustrates the identifiersused for classic endpoint routing (L2/L3, or V4/V6) can also be used fortree/branch addressing i.e., the hardware is the same, only theinterpretation of the packets by the cells need be different (i.e., torecognize entangled link packets, entangled transaction packets, treebuilding discovery packets, etc. The identifier 2402 is matched in CAM.It may be a L2 address, L4 (V4 or V6) address or any other identifier topredicate routing decisions (for example, an identifier indicating anitinerant object—for content based routing). Note that the entanglementpackets can be combined with routing packets. Whereas content basedrouting (routing within cells that forwards to the output port(s)indicated by the presence of the targeted content in that direction(uses the TCAM (don't-care prefix in the routing table).

Structural Temporal Integrity (STI).

Structural Temporal Integrity (STI) refers to techniques for maintaininga persistent spatiotemporal structure between entities in a scaleindependent distributed computing system by means of managed andobserved temporal relationships. Software entanglements or hardwareassisted functions in the MC or switch (timers, counters, threshold andanomaly detectors) supplement or replace conventional concepts ofheartbeats, liveness, failure detectors and partition management indistributed systems. The structured aggregation of these relationshipsinto networks provides emergent properties similar to structuralintegrity in mechanical systems, which may be exploited to providerobustness to perturbations (failures, disasters, attacks-includingcyber).

Individual relationships such as those described above in the EntangledLinks [ENTL] have properties including persistence (remembering who theywere connected to when a communication is broken), latency (minimum,average), reliability (packet loss), bandwidth, and an immutable historyof past relationships and failures on that port. These properties areobserved and maintained by mechanisms at the lowest levels in theoperating system and I/O devices, quite independently of any processesrunning at the application layer or kernel, with the exception that theyprovide services to them. Typically, they are implemented on dedicated(side/sequestered) cores in order to provide isolation from legacy OSand applications, and their security vulnerabilities, as described inFIG. 7B.

STI provides the ability to dynamically discover, name, and monitor thehealth of entire sets of nodes (cells) as a whole. To identify storage,bandwidth and computation carrying capacities, and their current loadingand rates of usage. While this information is monitored locally, it canbe made available to higher layers for aggregation (and managementreporting).

The primary purpose of STI stems from its ability to support persistentcomputation and data storage over a dynamic graph of vertices and edgesin spite of ongoing partitions and merging (healing) of the network.This, in turn, supports dynamic computation among a group of cooperatingagents, elastic expansion of the computation as new resources are madeavailable, and the potential for dynamic reconfiguration to complete thecomputation even though agents or subsets of agents are failing and mustbe withdrawn from the resource pool.

Various characteristics of the network are measured precisely at thelocal level, and information on liveness, averages, diameter, etc.,percolate across the network through the transitive neighbor to neighborinteractions between individual nodes.

In mechanical engineering, tensegrity (tensional integrity) is astructural principle based on the use of isolated components incompression inside a net of continuous tension. In addition to largescale Geodesic Domes, small scale molecules like carbon fullerenes andnanotubes share their remarkable mechanical properties, includingtensile strength.

Structural integrity is a widely known and well understood phenomena inmechanical systems. This invention enables equivalent can be achieved indistributed system in a temporal fashion (through latency awareness andanomaly detection thresholds).

Packet exchanges between computers can form a system-wide collectiveintegrity, and if any part of the system is disturbed, other parts ofeven a large distributed system can be made aware of this disturbance inremarkably short order. Whereas typical heartbeat packets andprotocol-stack based communication in distributed systems work from afew milliseconds to many tens of seconds, a clique of cells exhibitingTSI can distribute awareness of temporal disturbances in hundreds ofmicroseconds over conventional network fabric, or even in a fewmicroseconds when NICs on different cells are directly connected.

Applications of this technique include attack awareness when systems arepenetrated, mutual testing of health properties, collective responses tosystem-wide events during disasters, and simple real-time awareness ofphysical reconfiguration events—either through human action, ormechanical damage.

A geodesic dome is a lattice of mechanical nodes and links based on anetwork of great circles (geodesics) on the surface of a sphere. Thegeodesics intersect to form triangular elements that have localtriangular rigidity and also distribute the stress across the structure.Geodesic designs are used to enclose a space.

Tensegrity is a property of a structure indicating a reliance on abalance between components that are either in pure compression or puretension for stability. Tensegrity structures exhibit extremely highstrength-to-weight ratios and great resilience, and are therefore widelyused in engineering, robotics and architecture.

Tensegrity is the engineering principle of continuous tension anddiscontinuous compression that allows geodesic domes to deploy alightweight lattice of interlocking icosahedrons, and yet be incrediblystrong and rigid, despite failures or damage to parts of the structure.A “three-way grid” of structural members results in substantiallyuniform stressing of all members, and the framework itself acts almostas a membrane in absorbing and distributing loads. The resultantstructure is a spidery framework of many light pieces such as aluminumrods, tubes, sheets or extruded sections which complement each other ina spatially distributed vertex and link structure.

Classic examples of tensegrity structures are the sculptures of KennethSnelson that suspend isolated rigid columns in mid-air byinterconnecting them with a continuous tensile cable network thatprestresses the whole system, and the geodesic domes of BuckminsterFuller that utilize triangulation and minimal tensional paths betweenall pairs of neighboring vertices to maintain their stability.Prestressed tensegrity structures are found at all size scales in livingsystems and play a central role in cellular mechanotransduction. Anumber of wireframe structures have been built from DNA; however, theseare relatively static shapes that do not display many of the novelmechanical features of prestressed tensegrity structures, such as theability to globally reorient internal members and thereby strengthen inresponse to a local stress.

In the field of distributed systems, we advocate using closely analogousprinciples to create a lightweight but rigid “spatiotemporal structure”which grows stronger and more robust to perturbations as it gets larger.By incorporating authentication and temporal awareness directly into amodel of persistent relationships, we can build far more robust systemsthan is currently possible with remote procedure and other commonclient-server or network computing technologies, and provide newfoundations to make our systems secure.

Just as structural integrity is fundamental to the cohesion andresilience of mechanical systems (e.g., bridges, geodesic domes,aircrafts, ships and buildings), Structural Temporal Integrity (STI) isfundamental to the cohesion and resilience of IT infrastructures.

Without STI, IT systems must be individually designed, installed,configured, managed and monitored. When they fail, they requireindividual attention to bring them back to their intended state ofoperation.

With STI, IT systems are autonomously-configured, self-monitoring, andmanaged as self-organized and substitutable sets, ready to respond andadapt to service requests(continuous or event) or perturbations(failures, disasters, attacks).

Structural Temporal Integrity (STI) is the result of research into thenature of time in distributed systems. This is a model for interactionsbetween computers—that emulates the interactions between fermions andbosons in physics—and powerfully exploits these simple, subtle andfundamental characteristics that hold our universe together.

STI provides a temporal cohesion—an awareness of various spatiotemporalproperties of the relationship between neighbors in a network. Using themathematics of sheaf theory and percolation, we maintain knowledgethrough transitive-closure for system-wide integrity without the needfor direct communication across the network which would otherwiseinhibit scalability, performance and impose unnecessary failure modesthat cause widespread disruption in the operation of distributedcomputations.

STI is layered. Neighbor cells, at their lowest level of abstraction,share a common entangled link to maintain neighbor awareness.Connectivity is actively monitored; symmetric packets maintain thismutual awareness while missed packets initiate a progressive decay inthe integrity of the connection with each lost packet—from a maximumvalue integer, down to a floor of one (zero may be reserved foruninitialized connections). Many things are monitored locally in thisconnection, including the electrical link state of the MC, to thelatency profile (min, max, moving average) of the entanglement packetsthemselves, and the packet loss.

In this way, properties of the link (shared by reactive entities on bothsides), may be used by higher level functions to make decisions onrouting, security domains, failover paths, load/capacity-balancing, orresponse to perturbations.

Higher-level entanglements occur between passive agents which exist oncells distributed one or more hops away in the network. Thesemultipartite entanglements maintain distributed knowledge of each otherthrough arbitrary network partitions and merges, and enable algebraicoperations to be performed to maintain data safety and persistence, aswell as to perform damage assessments due to regional—or systemwide—infrastructure disruptions.

Still higher-level entanglements may occur between active agents in thesystem, where: 1) Streaming is required for the ingestion of new data,local protection, distribution to an arbitrary number of remote agents,and its contemporaneous delivery to a recording archive. (Single-writer,multiple-reader); or 2) Coherence is required, for example, betweenreplicas of a data object shared by a few, or many, agents (multiplereader/writers).

These relationships are specified by the MetaData Tensor (in, forexample, a cascaded synchrony path through multiple cells). The entirepath transitively maintains its entanglement properties, while the MDTprovides adaptive coherency.

STI also enables various security mechanisms to be deployed: Each celltransmits a unique cryptographic token to the other, containing itspublic key. There are two slots in the message: the last token receivedand the current token being sent (the Cell IDs are the public key forthat cell). When this is the first packet (e.g., after a cell has beenbrought up) the second slot is zero.

STI allows variations in spatiotemporal relationships to be monitoredlocally, and exceptions to trigger messages to security monitors indifferent parts of the system.

STI maintains virtual connectivity between cells and the agents on them.Virtual connectivity means that if a link is intermittent (i.e., a WANwith packet loss), then a reconnected link between the same two cells(or the same failover group in a clique) will quickly re-establish thelink awareness without initiating network healing operations, or aheavyweight authentication protocol. However, each side of the failedlink may require the other side to perform an irreversible computationtask which verifies that no additional code is in the path of executionon the core of its neighbor node. This test may include cryptographicsignature of itself as it executing the code.

STI: A New Security Toolset

Language Support for STI: Structural Temporal Entanglement is integrateddirectly into and driven by the Earthcore Language System—discovery,mobility, network evolution etc., are represented as continuouslyupdated resource manifests, and global aggregations of distributedstate, available directly to the language where we can compose proven,robust, and secure elements into functions and applications that drivethe ingest, migration and persistence of the data.

Underlying each of these elements in the language system, are the STImechanisms, available as first class primitives in the language so thatdeclarations can be made to—for example—maintain a mirror for safelyingesting data, perform continuous backups for protecting active data,and retire inactive data to an archive under some specified InformationLifecycle Management (ILM) rule, or a set of rules comprising a coherentregulatory compliance system for that dataset.

Support for STI in the Earthcore DAL Layer

STI provides advantages similar to and complementary to structuralintegrity in systems constructed in 3D space. In physics, space and timeare inseparable, so a rich temporal relationship that allows agents andapplications to zoom in and out of temporal awareness can eliminate muchof the fragility, brittleness and uncertainty of conventional networkswith flapping routes, high packet loss, or DDoS attacks. STI brings awhole new meaning to the concept of liveness in distributed systems.

Most importantly, STI provides temporal cohesiveness to ascale-independent information infrastructure. Each part is intrinsicallyconnected to the whole, with a protocol architecture that uses a smallfraction of the bandwidth between cells, and scales as a constant-nomatter how large the system grows.

Earthcore overcomes many common psuedo-failures due to disks or filesystems becoming full. By automatically replicating objects to othercells on ingest (synchronously or asynchronously), the ingest disk cansimply evaporate least-recently used objects on the edge cells, therebymaking room for new data. This (capacity balancing) mechanism isrecursive; least-recently used objects progressively migrate away fromedge cells to core cells in the network, creating an administrator-less,self-tiering gradient of most-recently to least-recently used objectsacross the system. In addition to eliminating unnecessary humanattention for this common migration operation, it eliminates one of themost common and pervasive failures seen by applications.

No longer do we need to respond immediately to disks failing, lostconnections to backup systems, or non-responding remote archive systems.A simple algebraic expression describes the predicates that the systemshould maintain, and the underlying self-healing mechanisms take care ofthe rest. Failed devices and systems are simply retired from use andadded to the maintenance manifest.

Because Earthcore is built from nothing but substitutable cells, anycell can be used as a sibling in a failover group (clique) to replaceany other. Because agents (and the replicas of objects they represent)can be created or migrated to any cell dynamically, any of them canrepresent any storage function: a primary, mirror, backup, remotereplica, cache, archive, etc. And failures can recover from any of them,to transparently recreate what was lost.

Security Architecture and Methods

Encryption

Earthcore maintains all objects in the DAL as encrypted. Objects (andtheir replicas) may therefore be itinerant, and migrate around theclique, colony and complex in their encrypted state. This eliminatesmuch of the performance overhead of encrypting “on the wire”, allowscells with a lower security clearance to store data of a higherclassification, and eliminates several potential attack vectors for theexposure of sensitive information should these cells be compromised orphysically stolen. Keys are never distributed to or through intermediatecells without at least an additional layer of encryption, and alternatepaths for redundancy.

Earthcore cells are fully substitutable. However, they may specializebased on relationships to client accesses, e.g., into “edge” cells(those with access through potentially insecure legacy protocols), and“core” cells, which are accessible only via the Dynamic Locally SecureProtocol (DLSP). The distinction is made by what the cells sees from itsvantage point as inputs to its network ports. Objects are ingested andencrypted (and keys are managed) and decrypted on edge cells. See FIGS.22B and C.

There are cases where it is impossible or undesirable to maintain allreplicas of an object in an encrypted state. Examples include partner(or mirror) replicas, to protect newly ingested data from disk errors[SDC, etc.]—Cascaded Synchrony, where backups progressively flow fromsynchronous fast updates, to updates, to slower updates, and theneventual updates across a distributed system, and active sharing ofobjects across different cliques.

In these cases, the stacked security trees provide a constraint overlayto bound the flow of unencrypted or lightly encrypted data (one ofvarious forms of “block” encryption that allows modification in place,or appends protocols to minimize the amount of information to be sent oneach update), so that it can be efficiently combined at each replica tocause the sooth evolution of those replicas from one stable state(snapshot) to another.

Time

One of the most widely under-appreciated attack vectors on computersystems is the notion of “time,” which is frequently implemented incomputer systems as if it were a single monotonically increasingfunction on the real line.

The theoretical difficulty of this lies in the physical reality thattime (as an observable change; an information flow) moves successivelywithin a graph of vertices, (not in some linear or total order) passinginformation both forward and backward along the links between them in apartial order. However, our devices, systems and even our own memorysees only the only the decoherence effects of information accumulating(along a direction we experience as going “forwards” in time).

The fact that a ten-year-old-child can exploit mobile games bydisconnecting her device from the network, manipulating the clocksettings and then reconnecting it to the network is an example of howtrivially easy it is to circumvent the security of an application.However, these problems are in a general class of security mechanismswhich fail because the underlying axiom regarding time is flawed. In avirtualized world, every computer system must recognize that time is avariable that may be manipulated, both for legitimate operationalpurposes as well as maliciously. Operating systems as well asapplications must be prepared for their executions, and/or their“Real-Time-Clocks” (RTCs) to be stalled for indefinite periods relativeto other systems. RTCs may also be set forward, backward or arbitrarilystalled, and cannot be relied upon to deliver a monotonically increasingfunction independently of some higher level trusted source of time. Themost common method of accounting for clock drift is synchronizing itselfto some well-known time server. Unfortunately, those time servers maynot be trustable, and can be impersonated. There is no general solutionto this problem that is both practical and theoretically correct,because of the relativity of simultaneity (both special and general) andthe nature of information transfer in quantum entanglement/decoherence.Time must therefore be examined extremely carefully in any distributedalgorithm. There are situations (for example in regular transactions)where a local notion of time must be able to go backwards to reverse atransaction which was unable to proceed and guarantee its atomic,consistent, independent and durable properties.

While we cannot, in general, trust either an internal or external sourceof time, (especially a virtual machine), there are situations where“successiveness” violations can be detected, for example, in theentangled links mechanism. Entangled Links exploit the differencebetween reversible computing and irreversible computing, and lies at theheart of Landauer and Bennett's definitions. They can be composed intohigher level functions, such as Entangled Transactions, and StructuralTemporal Integrity (STI) which is described below as a mechanism totrigger re-authentication when “successiveness” violations are detected.

STI therefore creates its own ‘temporal intimacy.” It recognizes thatthe only objectively verifiable progress of time is in the linksthemselves, where we emulate a reversible computation. This emulation issilent when it is operating correctly, “exquisitely sensitive” to lostpackets and uses a beacon mechanism driven by a hardware timer torestart the entanglement when entanglement is lost. The normal operatingmode of the links is for time to appear “frozen”.

Collections of cells connected by such links can be aggregated into ahigher level“temporal intimacy” where each of the cells are mutuallyre-enforcing regarding their awareness of time. Capable of “sensing”that a potential sibling cell is running more code than it should torespond to the entanglement and other “test” packets (for example, ifsomeone tried to run the Earthcore itself in a virtual machine).

This awareness can be used for a number of security countermeasures. Forexample, it no longer needs to “trust” external sources of timeinformation from the network which can be impersonated or compromised.It can be used as a collective “immune system” to detect malicious codethrough anomalous timing signatures. It can also be used to providehigh-resolution latency triangulation for network packets coming in fromoutside the secure system, and (through an even higher level cooperationacross data centers) provide malicious attack analysis on a “real-time”evolving set of blacklists, whitelists and greylists.

Secure Domains

One of the many theoretical and practical advantages of Earthcore'scellular structure is the physical and logical boundary afforded by acell and the software which runs on it. This affords an opportunity to(at some level) provide a clear and unique identity that may be securedand authenticated, and which the system as a whole can detect if it hasbeen illegitimately cloned.

At the heart of all security protocols is the notion of a trustedobject: some hardware or software kernel that cannot be compromised. See114 in FIG. 1 .

Secure Links

Just as agents are encapsulated, complete, and autonomous computationalelements, links also represent the same. Although agents get their senseof time from the internal clock of the computer, links get their senseof time from the active protocol relationships occurring over them: if alink fails, as far as the link (on both sides) is concerned, time hasstopped.

Communication

Our approach to communication explicitly recognizes the informationalvalue in the relationships between entities. All communication isstrictly bipartite at the fundamental level (cell to cell, agent toagent). In particular, broadcast is disallowed, along with any virtualsynchrony or other mechanisms implemented in a low-level multicastarrangement.

This one to one mapping of communication between cells affords severalmathematically useful properties:

Cells each have their own local identity, known only to the link.

The link is treated as an independent and autonomous computationalentity. If the link fails, the progress of “time” relative to that linkis compromised.

Security Trees

Computation spiders (dynamic graph of cooperating agents) exist at allthree layers of the Earthcore infrastructure: CAL, DAL and NAL.

Only the infrastructure spiders can build trees (Directed AcyclicGraphs—DAGs) on top of an arbitrary graph. Object spiders build trees ontop of the already established and declaratively maintainedinfrastructure trees for inactive objects. Computation spiders buildhigher level tree covers which define and maintain the set of resourceswhere active computations are allowed to write to the now activeobjects. Each layer may be built on its own set of security trees, whichis invisible to the spiders at a higher level, but which inherits itssecurity properties from spiders at lower levels.

The Earthcore architecture allows the definition of subgraphs (cells andlinks) which are secure and authenticated relative to the namespaces andobjects. This requires that the spanning tree and healing algorithmsparticipate in the security and integrity aspects of the secure trees.

Authentication

Edge cells are able to deploy various intruder and impersonatorcountermeasures. The first, and most important, is the limitation thatlegacy protocols are required to be from clients in the same subnet.Subnet presence can be verified by the authentication (log-on)mechanism, and further validated by their latency signature (forexample, using the Distributed Address Source Triangulation methoddescribed in the DAST patent disclosure).

Authentication in Earthcore involves a client device (one that attemptsto connect via legacy protocols, e.g., cifs, nfs, ftp, http, etc.),first establishing its security clearance with the Earthcore system.This is, in effect, a log-on at the organization level, which specifiesthat this client device is “fit” for accessing files in thisorganization's namespace. This does not provide actual access to files,it only validates that that organization has certified (or acceptedsomeone else's certification) that the device belongs to the securityclass that it claims, and that its security countermeasures are properlyfunctioning and up to date. This may be validated by verifying thehardware and software configuration, and relationship with a VMhypervisor, by various cryptographic means that overcome replay attacksfrom a potential man in the middle.

Client devices are assigned certain properties by the system, whichallow modulation of their privileges, based on, for example, whether ornot they are accessing the system from within the same subnet of thecell that fielded the request, or have some specific latency signaturethat can be used to verify their position to a known or trustedlocation.

The next level of authentication is between the user on that clientdevice and their own personal namespace. This requires the user topresent their policy-enabled authentication procedure (for example, atwo or three factor authentication, depending on the clearance level ofthe individual and the potential damage that might be caused by animpersonator). Continuous Adaptive Authentication mechanisms may bedeployed, in conjunction with the client, to ensure that they remainclean during the session.

Specific applications that are run by the user may be subject to furtherdegrees of authentication to ensure non-repudiability and provideresistance to falsification of information.

FIG. 25 compares the complexity (indirect addressing state space) ofconventional application networks and entangled chains. In aconventional chain application (pipeline), the address of the next nodemaps through an indirect pointer, which can take on any values from thefull address space. In the entangled chain, the address of the next cellmay be either the port identifier (perhaps 3-4 bits for 8-16possibilities), or always the same value (e.g. opposite the port it camein on).

FIG. 26A shows a set of closely synchronized cells in a clique depictingStructural Temporal Integrity (STI). There are several ways thathardware can help support Structural Temporal Integrity (their softwareequivalent can also be supported in the device driver or interruptservice routing in the absence of hardware support):

Automatic Measurement of entanglement latency: establishing baseline,running averages, and threshold detection (of say 2×, 4× or 8×violation). In order to eliminate security hazards, these parametersshould be baked into the firmware, and not modifiable by normalsoftware.

Automatic measurement of entanglement loss. This follows the descriptionin the original ENTL and ENTT disclosure.

Automatic forwarding of packets. Although this is a normal function fora router (forwarding plane), it takes on a special meaning when we wishto distinguish between Virtual Entanglement and Logical Entanglement(See VIRE disclosure in the provisional application). In this case, thehardware forwarding function needs to distinguish between the operationmode (perhaps triggered by entanglement packet type) by (a) returningthe entanglement token back to the entangled MC which sent it and (b)forwarding the entanglement token onto the specified subtree, or (c)both.

System-Wide Temporal Awareness. Entangled packets support StructuralTemporal Integrity (STI) via rapid propagation of awareness of eventsthroughout its trees. This is particularly important in scenarios wheremajor damage is being experienced by many cells at or around the sametime. Early warning of correlated system-wide perturbations (failures,disasters and attacks—including cyber) enables cells to take pre-emptiveaction to protect and save their data, and to shut down their ownactivities into a safe mode until the event has subsided.

A particularly important aspect of STI to support defense against cyberattacks is if instrumentation in one of the “edge” cells detects anevent (for example, suspicion of an intrusion from a particular IPaddress DDOS attack), it can utilize its Virtual (as opposed to logical)Entangled Links through the core cells to all other “edge” cells tocommunicate this information as rapidly as possible. This would allowthe fastest possible “cut through” routing of packets through the core,but with all edge cells receiving the data as fast as possible, in orderto instigate their counter measures, and potentially share attackerinformation on, for example, load-balanced cells. Such information mayinclude the update of blacklists (definitely bad), whitelists(definitely good) and greylists (suspected) IP addresses.

Instrumentation propagation. Entanglement packets are effectively NULpackets to maintain temporal intimacy, but have no semantic meaning.However, in principle, there is no reason why one or more elements of“background instrumentation” cannot be transmitted within the sparespace of an entangled packet. This is particularly useful when we mightwish to replace, for example, much of the error logging machinery ofmodern servers. Since the bandwidth used by entanglement packets isotherwise “spare” it can be used without affecting the rest of thesystem, or the normal application traffic. The particular case oftimeout errors is treated specifically below in this document, howeverthere are many other ways that the combination of entanglement packets,supported by the hardware, can reduce or even potentially eliminate muchof the excessive logging of errors in a distributed infrastructure.

FIG. 26B shows how cliques can grow arbitrarily large in any direction,demonstrating their scale-independence. FIG. 26B is a block diagramshowing structural temporal integrity is scale independent, if we useentangled links between cells, there is no common simultaneity plane,but there is an ability to “time order” behaviors in the system bymanaging the serialization foci.

FIG. 26C shows how cells in arbitrary networks will naturally form(self-organize) into communities with the latency of each entangled linkrepresenting a natural boundary defining the community/clique.

FIG. 27 is a state diagram of a process for discovering a cell. Thetransition is for “strange.” The criteria for decision is that all portspresent & accounted for (have either sent or received a discover packeton all active ports). At least one port is charmed (leaf). There maystill end up with later arrival of a discover packet on other ports, butat least the cell now has a basis on which to make a preliminarydecision. Code: message.modifier(p/P) p ports discovered, of a total ofP. Key Transition is for ‘strange” (Taken from Patent “Self-HealingCommunicationTrees”. Criteria for decision—all ports present & accountedfor (have either sent or received a discover packet on all activeports). At least one port is charmed (leaf). We may still end up withlater arrival of a discover packet on other ports, but at least the cellnow has a basis on which to make a preliminary decision. Cells and linksmay be constantly added or deleted, the protocol must therefore becapable of handling a dynamically changing protocol. Entanglement isautomatic, as soon as a cell is connected, it will be discovered. Thenext step would be for the cell to “publish” its tree as an overlay overthe entangled links. This publish contains a public key, so that anyother cell that wishes to subscribe, and communicate privately with theroot cell on its tree. In principle, cells cannot subscribe before theyhave (a) joined the network, and (b) have received a publish packetwhich build the tree.

FIG. 28A shows a 3-way relationship using bipartite links. Each cell caninform its neighbor if entanglement (or some higher session presence) isbroken. Two or more neighbors can cooperate via promises to organizehigher levels of perturbation detection and recovery. This figure showsa single full-duplex link (one transmit, one receive channel).

FIG. 28B shows the entangled multi-link structure 1202 can be created inpairs (or some higher number) on the same link. This is either multipleentanglement, or by utilizing a different signaling method on the media(e.g. 8 copper wires/4 twisted pairs) on the Ethernet cable toaccommodate independent entanglement processes, each capable ofproviding events to check that the other is still running.

FIG. 29A shows a more detailed structure incorporating multiple separatebuffers and notification channels into the agent. The blue segmentscontain the entanglement protocol in the independent subsynchronoustiming domain.

FIG. 30A is a block diagram of a multiple entangled link having fourentangled links. FIG. 30A illustrate how two computing devices can becoupled by multiple entangled links 202. In this example, fourindividual entangled links 202 are used to form a multiple entangleslink 3002.

Hardware Support for Latency, Bandwidth, Packet Loss & OtherInstrumentation.

The notion of “time” in physics and computer science is a deep andcontroversial subject. However, the essence of the entangled linkemulation of quantum entanglement is that we get closer to the nature ofwhat time really is by removing all unnecessary mechanisms and CPUcycles as possible between two communicating devices, and measuringlatency at the lowest possible level between them. It is thereforepreferable for the hardware in the MC (or network switch) to carrysimple mechanisms for instrumentation.

This allows not only the highest accuracy and reliability for thefunctions described in this disclosure, but also enables services to beprovided for higher levels in the hypervisor, network protocol stack,kernel or application layer to improve its security, availability,recoverability, or simply to provide system health.

FIG. 30B is a block diagram of an example of a four lane implementationof an entangled link 3000. FIG. 30B shows a block diagram of an exampleclassical hardware implementation of a full duplex Media AccessController (MAC) showing signal mapping of receive 3004 and transmit3020 channels from the media via interface 3002 to the XGM 3006, were itinterfaces to the Network Interface Controller (MC), and thence to thecomputer where it interfaces to the software. Because of the parallelnature of the 10G Ethernet MAC layer, it is impossible to predict thelane in which the ending byte of the previous packet stream will fall.This makes finding the starting byte (a requirement for maintainingsynchronization) more difficult. IEEE 802.3ae mandates any “startcontrol character,” or first byte of a new data frame must align withLane 0. However, this solution complicates the way the MAC handles theInter Packet Gap (IPG), which, along with the physical lengthconstraints specified for the media, directly affects the packetoverhead, which indirectly affects performance.

Interface 3002 is a conventional (standard) interface between the MAClayer and the PHY layer for 10 GbE. Similar methods may be used forother contemporary Ethernet baud rates e.g. 25 GbE, 40 GbE, 100 GbE, upto and beyond 1TbE.

FIG. 30B shows a MultiGigaBit Network Interface Controller (MC) with 4lanes modified to support multiple entangled links. An additionalmechanism 3008 to support the Entangled Link 3000, using any one ofseveral matrix transformed and/or monotonic and reversible codingmechanisms to maintain an independent (asynchronous) timing domain ofthe hot potato packets in the link is shown in grey. This is an example,in principle, how the hot potato information transform and retransmitshould occur at the earliest possible place in the path of incomingdata. All hot potato information detection, transformation andretransmission paths anywhere within structures such as this areclaimed. Functions in the grey box are added to allow early recognitionand reflection of entanglement packets, which may be emulated by variousmechanisms, with or without encryption. In true quantum entanglement,this would include a single qubit (unit of quantum information). Invarious embodiments of this invention, various patterns of bitsrecognizable by the lane synchronization and XB/YB encoders provide anemulation of a qubit with a 2-bit, 8-bit, 32-bit or 64-bit quantity,which provides practical benefits that can be realizable in theclassical domain.

Entanglement emulation packets are recognized and returned at theearliest possible moment of detection in the lane receiver, andretransmitted (with or without static or evolving encryption). Theadditional mechanism 3008 shows additional logic required for ENTLtransform (hardware transform of input packets to output packets withinthe MC). For example, the additional mechanism 3008 can include ENTLtransform logic 3010, a decoder interface 3012, ENTL control 3014, keybuffers 3016, and an XGM interface 3018.

If quantum devices are used, the shared quantum state (entanglement) maybe created directly between these interfaces over the fiber, without theneed for ‘observation’ by the rest of the MAC (which would decohere theshared state). The interface logic then uses conventional quantum singlephoton emitter/detector technology to manage the shared state and detectcorrelations for use in, for example, QKD.

When quantum devices are not used, the mechanism provides a hardwareemulation of quantum processes through the hot potato informationexchange protocol described in this invention. With the dataserialized/de-serialized separately for one of N lanes (4 lanes areshown above, but any number of lanes is claimed from 1 upwards(including fractional lanes used for forward error correction, etc.).The advantage of multiple lanes is: (a) compatibility with existingnetworking infrastructure (both copper and fiber) in modern datacenters.(b) potential timing independence of each lane creating a redundantpacket entanglements within the same link as described earlier in“multiple entangled links”.

Entangled links represent timeless entities. They emulate quantumprocesses by allowing an isolated computational entity to express theequivalent of unitary evolution which exhibits a property ofsuperposition and reversibility in the wave function (the shared statein the entangled link). These functions are generally assumed to beinaccessible in classical systems. The FIG. 30B show one embodiment inwhich (some of) the benefits of quantum processes can be achieved withclassical algorithms and packets on the network, if the conventionalassumptions regarding time are re-defined.

FIG. 30C shows an example hardware implementation of an entangled link710 using Network Interface Controllers (NICs). FIG. 30C depicts a (backto back) embodiment of the entangled link 710, using two of these NICs,connected back to back by some media 720 (such as copper transmissionline(s), or optical (single or multiple mode) fiber. It shows thecompletely independent temporal domain of the entangled link(s). Whileentanglement is active, there are no synchronization events (which mayinvolve metastable glitches) between the local computers on either sideof the link. The temporal domain within the link creates its ownmutually synchronous temporal relationship independent of the timingdomains on either side. This relationship may be emulated by software oneither side of the link running on any core of a processor (dedicated orotherwise). The preferred embodiment in software is within the interruptservice routine of the device driver. The overall preferred embodimentis implementation in hardware as described below.

The segment 710 shows the preferred confinement of the entangled link tothe smallest physical mechanism possible, shared between the two halvesof the link. The media (720) may be copper or fiber. When it is fiber,single polarized photon emitters and detectors may be used on eitherside (804 a and 804 b). Together, they comprise an entangled link

Back to back ENTL interfaces using each of 4 lanes within the link formultiple entanglement. Example corresponds to 10/40/100 GbitInterconnect (more or less than 4 lanes are claimed, any futurebaud-rate is also claimed). Each lane is a back to back self-synchronousdomain, with no synchronization relationship whatsoever between thecomputers on either end outside of the link. The measurement of time isnot permitted.

Entanglement may be emulated in a number of ways with classicalconnections: 1) Full packets; 2) 8B/10B, 64B/66B or any other XB/YBEncoding; 3) Disparity Codes; 4) Gray Codes; 5) Lane packets (as shownabove), where each lane is a separate entanglement (multipleentanglement); 6) Modified (clear or encrypted) preambles (which may ormay not be incompatible with legacy hardware); 7) Modified (clear orencrypted) idle patterns (which may or may not be incompatible withlegacy hardware); 8 Any recognizable pattern in the inter-frame gap(IFG); and 9) Transition signaling.

Full Packets were described in previous provisional applications with orwithout special Ethertype code. i.e., full Ethernet packets werereflected (echoed directly by the device driver ISR or MC Firmware).This method remains useful when modified hardware is not available totake advantage of the embodiments described herein.

In 8B/10B and 64B/66B or any XB/YB encoding, there are a number ofspecial symbols for control (as opposed to data) communication. Thecontrol symbols typically may be used for start/end of frame, link idle,skip, etc. One embodiment of this invention is to use one of these linkcontrol symbols to indicate entanglement (Ψ=|↑

+|↓

). For Fibrechannel, these control symbols indicate arbitration, fillwords (similar to idle), link reset, etc.

Lane Packets

Transition signaling recognizes that pulses are fundamentally unreliable(they can get lost, or not be seen). In copper interconnects inparticular, another opportunity exists: transitions from a low level tohigh (on) and transitions from a high level to low (off), are bothevents which may equally be used to signal information transfer. Controlcircuits for transition signaling are built from Merge (XOR), MullerC-elements (AND) and Toggle elements; well known in implementingasynchronous (self-timed) logic. One embodiment of this invention usesthese circuits in conjunction with the properties described above and inthe provisional applications that are incorporated into this applicationby reference to support independent timing domains, self-synchronizationand atomic (reversible) token exchange for entangled links and entangledtransactions.

Entangled links employ a different model for time than is assumed inconventional computer science. Only the sender and receiver agree on theinterval bounded by the event recurrences (transitions) inside theentangled loop. This will generally have no relationship whatsoever tothe awareness of time by the cell agents on either end. A measurement oflatency may be requested by the cell agent to characterize a link, butin general, there should be no requirement for measurements to be madeon the entangled link. From the perspective of a cell agent, they aretimeless, stateless and invisible.

Preamble Implementation

The first seven bytes of the Ethernet preamble are a repetition of thepattern: 10101010. The last byte, Start of Frame (SOF), differs by onebit: 10101011. These 8 bytes of the preamble and the SOF create apattern of 64 bits. These are not counted as part of the Ethernet frame.The frame begins immediately after the SOF, without a gap. Analternative preamble pattern of, for example: 10100101 or 10101111 (orany other easily discernible bistable state change) may be used toindicate entanglement, i.e. distinction between |↑

and |↓

.

The preamble demonstrates the pace of the arriving data and allows thereceivers to synchronize to the frequency and phase of the transmitter.The preamble therefore serves as a clock synchronization mechanismallowing the receiver to distinguish where one bit ends and the otherone starts.

The preamble may also be dynamically shortened, because of the use ofshort cables connecting the cells in the switchless interconnectionscheme described above. This provides improved latency, reliability, andmore faithfully emulates the concept of entanglement.

Idle Pattern as Entanglement

Idle replaces the Normal Link Pulses (NLPs) used in 10Base-T. For someEthernet protocols, there is no maximum amount of idle specified betweenframes. This may be used to create a time warp on that link when, forexample, transaction packets are in process, which must be dealt withatomically in the cell agent. However, we expect that the implementationof this atomicity will be non-blocking (wait-free), from both aconventional time, and an entanglement (subtime) perspective.Entanglement can replace the idle pattern.

Inter-Frame Gap Implementation

With a Neighbor to Neighbor (N2N) connected network of cells as shown inthe switchless interconnection scheme above, the cables can be muchshorter (perhaps 100th of the size: 100 m down to 1M, or 10M down to 10cm). Therefore the IFG can be much shorter. Shorter IFGs translate tolower latency, higher bandwidth capability and an improved temporaldomain for the emulation of entanglement.

Hardware or software can detect (through the round trip delay) thatcable lengths are short, and automatically reduce the Inter-Frame Gap.Software can also detect that only another cell is connected on theother end, and make certain assumptions about the bipartite nature ofthe link, which may be used to defend against man-in-the-middle andSybil attacks.

Low Power Considerations

The concept of Low Power Idle (LPI) is a method explored by the IEEE802.3 working group to save energy by cycling between active and lowpower mode. Entanglement can be combined with this low-power idle mode.

While low-power idle mode is intended for applications where linkutilizations are low, this can easily be adapted to the entanglementlink invention. One way to do this requires parameterization of theperiod for the beacon packet, along with a programmed window ofexpectation—which would allow the entanglement to continue, with minorre-authentication check (key cycle verification).

Another approach to combining with the LPI mode is to use burstentanglement as described in the provisional.

This invention claims any and all methods of establishing a minimumtemporal domain for entanglement links, including those at theserializer/deserializer, and any other element inside the mediainterface on either side of the bidirectional link or dualunidirectional links used to implement the entangled link mechanism.

In real quantum entanglement implementation, this architecture coincideswith this requirement.

Systems and methods for entangled links and entangled transactions havebeen described. In the above description, for purposes of explanation,numerous specific details were set forth. It will be apparent, however,that the disclosed technologies can be practiced without any givensubset of these specific details. In other instances, structures anddevices are shown in block diagram form. For example, the disclosedtechnologies are described in some implementations above with referenceto user interfaces and particular hardware. Moreover, the technologiesdisclosed above primarily in the context of on line services; however,the disclosed technologies apply to other data sources and other datatypes (e.g., collections of other resources for example images, audio,web pages).

Reference in the specification to “one implementation” or “animplementation” means that a particular feature, structure, orcharacteristic described in connection with the implementation isincluded in at least one implementation of the disclosed technologies.The appearances of the phrase “in one implementation” in various placesin the specification are not necessarily all referring to the sameimplementation.

Some portions of the detailed descriptions above were presented in termsof processes and symbolic representations of operations on data bitswithin a computer memory. A process can generally be considered aself-consistent sequence of steps leading to a result. The steps mayinvolve physical manipulations of physical quantities. These quantitiestake the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored,transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated. Thesesignals may be referred to as being in the form of bits, values,elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers or the like.

These and similar terms can be associated with the appropriate physicalquantities and can be considered labels applied to these quantities.Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the priordiscussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description,discussions utilizing terms for example “processing” or “computing” or“calculating” or “determining” or “displaying” or the like, may refer tothe action and processes of a computer system, or similar electroniccomputing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented asphysical (electronic) quantities within the computer system's registersand memories into other data similarly represented as physicalquantities within the computer system memories or registers or othersuch information storage, transmission or display devices.

The disclosed technologies may also relate to an apparatus forperforming the operations herein. This apparatus may be speciallyconstructed for the required purposes, or it may include ageneral-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by acomputer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may bestored in a computer readable storage medium, for example, but is notlimited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks,CD-ROMs, and magnetic disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random accessmemories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, flashmemories including USB keys with non-volatile memory or any type ofmedia suitable for storing electronic instructions, each coupled to acomputer system bus.

The disclosed technologies can take the form of an entirely hardwareimplementation, an entirely software implementation or an implementationcontaining both hardware and software elements. In some implementations,the technology is implemented in software, which includes but is notlimited to firmware, resident software, microcode, etc.

Furthermore, the disclosed technologies can take the form of a computerprogram product accessible from a non-transitory computer-usable orcomputer-readable medium providing program code for use by or inconnection with a computer or any instruction execution system. For thepurposes of this description, a computer-usable or computer-readablemedium can be any apparatus that can contain, store, communicate,propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with theinstruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

A computing system or data processing system suitable for storing and/orexecuting program code will include at least one processor (e.g., ahardware processor) coupled directly or indirectly to memory elementsthrough a system bus. The memory elements can include local memoryemployed during actual execution of the program code, bulk storage, andcache memories which provide temporary storage of at least some programcode in order to reduce the number of times code must be retrieved frombulk storage during execution.

Input/output or I/O devices (including but not limited to keyboards,displays, pointing devices, etc.) can be coupled to the system eitherdirectly or through intervening I/O controllers.

Network adapters may also be coupled to the system to enable the dataprocessing system to become coupled to other data processing systems orremote printers or storage devices through intervening private or publicnetworks. Modems, cable modems and Ethernet cards are just a few of thecurrently available types of network adapters.

Finally, the processes and displays presented herein may not beinherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus.Various general-purpose systems may be used with programs in accordancewith the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct morespecialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The requiredstructure for a variety of these systems will appear from thedescription below. In addition, the disclosed technologies were notdescribed with reference to any particular programming language. It willbe appreciated that a variety of programming languages may be used toimplement the teachings of the technologies as described herein.

The foregoing description of the implementations of the presenttechniques and technologies has been presented for the purposes ofillustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or tolimit the present techniques and technologies to the precise formdisclosed. Many modifications and variations are possible in light ofthe above teaching. It is intended that the scope of the presenttechniques and technologies be limited not by this detailed description.The present techniques and technologies may be implemented in otherspecific forms without departing from the spirit or essentialcharacteristics thereof. Likewise, the particular naming and division ofthe modules, routines, features, attributes, methodologies and otheraspects are not mandatory or significant, and the mechanisms thatimplement the present techniques and technologies or its features mayhave different names, divisions and/or formats. Furthermore, themodules, routines, features, attributes, methodologies and other aspectsof the present technology can be implemented as software, hardware,firmware or any combination of the three. Also, wherever a component, anexample of which is a module, is implemented as software, the componentcan be implemented as a standalone program, as part of a larger program,as a plurality of separate programs, as a statically or dynamicallylinked library, as a kernel loadable module, as a device driver, and/orin every and any other way known now or in the future in computerprogramming. Additionally, the present techniques and technologies arein no way limited to implementation in any specific programminglanguage, or for any specific operating system or environment.Accordingly, the disclosure of the present techniques and technologiesis intended to be illustrative, but not limiting.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method for creating anentangled link between a first computing entity and a second computingentity comprising: identifying, using one or more processors, the firstcomputing entity; discovering, using one or more processors, the secondcomputing entity by the first computing entity; connecting, using one ormore processors, the first computing entity to the second computingentity; and establishing an entanglement between the first computingentity and the second computing entity to create the entangled link as asingle abstract computational entity, wherein the entangled link ismaintained using a packet-exchange hot potato protocol mechanism betweenthe first computing entity and the second computing entity.
 2. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the entangled link is asoftware synchronization domain, the first computing entity and thesecond computing entity are each a cell including an encapsulatedcomputer node, a cell agent and a transformation unit, and thetransformation unit of the first computing entity and the transformationunit of the second computing entity are coupled by a medium.
 3. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the packet-exchange hotpotato protocol mechanism comprises a reversible token exchange whichpresents no visible indication of progress until a communication ofinformation occurs between the first computing entity and the secondcomputing entity, and which maintains the potential for bounded orunbounded reversibility.
 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3,wherein the token exchange uses a token, wherein the token is uniquelyidentifiable only to each of the first computing entity and the secondcomputing entity.
 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, whereinthe reversible token exchange comprises: sending a token from the firstcomputing entity to the second computing entity; receiving the token bythe second computing entity; sending the token back from the secondcomputing entity to the first computing entity; and receiving the tokenreturned from the second computing entity by the first computing entity.6. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein thepacket-exchange hot potato protocol measures latency in the exchange ofthe token from the first computing entity to the second computing entityand from the second computing entity to the first computing entity. 7.The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the packet-exchangehot potato protocol mechanism further comprises an exchange of more thanone token between the first computing entity and the second computingentity.
 8. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the tokenis encrypted.
 9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising:creating a second entangled link between the second computing entity anda third computing entity; and creating an entangled transaction betweenthe first computing entity and the third computing entity by associatingthe entangled link and the second entangled link for atomic informationtransfer between the first computing entity and the third computingentity.
 10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, whereincommunication for the entangled transaction uses an entangledtransaction packet that is associated with one or more tokens used tomaintain the entangled links between the first computing entity, thesecond computing entity and the third computing entity.
 11. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 9, comprising: detectingunentanglement between the second computing entity and the thirdcomputing entity; creating a third entangled link between the thirdcomputing entity and a fourth computing entity; and reassigning theentangled transaction between the first computing entity and the thirdcomputing entity by associating the entangled link and the thirdentangled link for atomic information transfer between the firstcomputing entity and the third computing entity.
 12. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the entangledtransaction is maintained using a packet-exchange hot potato protocolmechanism between the first computing entity and the third computingentity and wherein the first computing entity and the third computingentity together maintain the entangled transaction as the singleabstract computational entity.
 13. The computer-implemented method ofclaim 12, wherein the packet-exchange hot potato protocol mechanismcomprises a reversible token exchange which presents no visibleindication of progress until a communication of information occursbetween the first computing entity and the third computing entity, andwhich maintains the potential for bounded or unbounded reversibility.14. A computer-implemented method for creating an entangled link betweena first computing entity and a second computing entity, comprising:identifying, using one or more processors, the first computing entity;discovering, using one or more processors, the second computing entityby the first computing entity; connecting, using one or more processors,the first computing entity to the second computing entity; establishingan entanglement between the first computing entity and the secondcomputing entity to create the entangled link as a single abstractcomputational entity; creating a second entangled link between thesecond computing entity and a third computing entity; and creating anentangled transaction between the first computing entity and the thirdcomputing entity by associating the entangled link and the secondentangled link for atomic information transfer between the firstcomputing entity and the third computing entity, wherein the entangledlink is between the first computing entity and the second computingentity and the second entangled link is between the second computingentity and the third computing entity, wherein the entangled link ismaintained using a packet-exchange hot potato protocol mechanism betweenthe first computing entity, the second computing entity and the thirdcomputing entity.
 15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14,wherein the packet-exchange hot potato protocol mechanism is areversible token exchange which presents no visible indication ofprogress until a communication of information occurs between the firstcomputing entity and the second computing entity.
 16. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the token exchange usesa token, wherein the token is uniquely identifiable only to each of thefirst computing entity, the second computing entity and the thirdcomputing entity.
 17. The computer-implemented method of claim 15,wherein the reversible token exchange comprises: sending a token fromthe first computing entity to the second computing entity; receiving thetoken by the second computing entity; sending the token back from thesecond computing entity to the first computing entity; and receiving thetoken returned from the second computing entity by the first computingentity.
 18. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein thepacket-exchange hot potato protocol measures latency in the exchange ofthe token from the first computing entity to the second computing entityand from the second computing entity to the first computing entity. 19.The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein communication forthe entangled transaction uses an entangled transaction packet that isassociated with one or more tokens used to maintain the entangled linksbetween the first computing entity, the second computing entity and thethird computing entity.
 20. The computer-implemented method of claim 14,further comprising: detecting unentanglement between the secondcomputing entity and the third computing entity; creating a thirdentangled link between the third computing entity and a fourth computingentity; and reassigning the entangled transaction between the firstcomputing entity and the third computing entity by associating theentangled link and the third entangled link for atomic informationtransfer between the first computing entity and the third computingentity.